Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYME CORPORATION BILL

Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.

CHESHIRE BRINE PUMPING (COMPENSA- TION FOR SUBSIDENCE) BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

STAFFORD CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

Oral Answers to Questions — GRENADA

Rabies Eradication Programme

Mr. Burden: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies what further steps have been taken by the Grenada Government in connection with the rabies eradication programme; and to what extent this programme is to be implemented by the poisoning of stray dogs.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies (Mr. Nigel Fisher): The Grenada Government have applied for financial help to pay their share of the cost of a rabies eradication programme. This will be on lines recommended by the World Health Organisation, except that the measures for the removal of stray dogs have been revised. These now provide for the destruction of stray dogs in a humane way by the local branch of the R.S.P.C.A.

Mr. Burden: I am sure that the House will be most grateful for the news which my hon. Friend has given, because there

has been very considerable concern about strychnine and other poisons unless these measures were taken.

Slaughterhouse Buildings, Grenville

Mr. Burden: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies what information he has as to the use now being made of the new slaughterhouse buildings erected in Grenville, Grenada, in 1959.

Mr. Fisher: Owing to drainage problems the slaughterhouse building in Grenville, Grenada, is not yet in use.

Mr. Burden: Can my hon. Friend say when these problems will be put right? Will he not agree that this slaughterhouse was introduced in order that animals should be humanely slaughtered? There is concern at the fact that it is not being put to the use for which it was designed.

Mr. Fisher: In fact, I should correct my hon. Friend. The slaughterhouse was completed in 1961, not 1959. I am sorry for the delay and have asked our administrator in Grenada to take urgent action about it. I think that the conditions in which animals are slaughtered are satisfactory. Indeed, the local branch of the R.S.P.C.A. is very active in Grenada and we should have had complaints if the conditions were not satisfactory.

Oral Answers to Questions — SEYCHELLES

Aerodrome

Mr. H. Clark: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies if he will hold consultations with the other Ministers concerned on the desirability of building an aerodrome on the Seychelles.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies (Mr. Duncan Sandys): Yes, Sir.

Mr. Clark: Could my hon. Friend go a little farther than that reply and give us some hope that an air base will be built on the Seychelles both for the advantage of the inhabitants of those islands and for strategic reasons?

Mr. Sandys: Yes, Sir. Strategic reasons are not, I think, very strong,


but we are, of course, examining the possibility of providing an airfield so that there can be a civil service between the mainland and the Seychelles. The distance, however, is about 1,000 miles which limits the type of aeroplane that can be used, and it is also quite difficult to run an economic service in that area.

Mr. Brockway: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there will be any consultations with the East African Governments on this matter?

Mr. Sandys: I do not think that we have got as far as that.

Mr. F. Harris: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that this is a subject above all for the Seychelles, which many of us, frankly, have been advocating for many years?

Mr. Sandys: I realise the advantage of an airfield.

Murder Trial

Mr. Abse: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies how many affidavits have now been received by him from residents of the Seychelles concerning the trial for murder of Paul Gobine and Philibert Loizeau and their subsequent conviction for manslaughter; whether he has now reviewed these affidavits what action he has taken upon them; and whether, in view of the allegations within the affidavits, he will conduct an independent inquiry into the conduct of the police, counsel and judiciary of the Seychelles in relation to the two trials of these men.

Mr. Holman: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies whether he is aware that many witnesses who gave evidence in the trials for murder and manslaughter of Paul Gobine and Philibert Loizeau in the Seychelles have deposed that their evidence was false and was given under duress by police and the prosecuting counsel and what action he intends to take to review the convictions of these two men.

Mr. Fisher: Fifteen affidavits have now been received. They are being examined with care but I wish to take further legal advice before coming to any decision.

Mr. Abse: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, while examining these affidavits, he will note that among the allegations was one that the Attorney General was a witness of the very occurrence which he was prosecuting. In view of the fact that this is a tight ingrown Bar far removed from any appellate jurisdiction, will the right hon. Gentleman take particular care that this matter is investigated in a way which will satisfy the wide disquiet among distinguished citizens in the Seychelles?

Mr. Fisher: I have seen the affidavits. The papers together with the case records run to about 600 pages, and I am getting the best legal advice that I can on the matter. I take the hon. Gentleman's point, and I will pursue the matter further.

Oral Answers to Questions — CENTRAL AFRICA

Ex-Federal Civil Servants

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies how many ex-employees of the Central African Federation have applied for hardship pensions; and how many have been granted.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies (Mr. R. P. Hornby): Twenty-three applications for assistance have so far been received. Nine have been rejected and two accepted. The remainder are under consideration. Assistance takes the form of a single immediate payment.

Dame Irene Ward: Would I be in order in asking my hon. Friend vis-á-vis the Treasury whether he is satisfied that the Treasury has done all it ought to do in view of the fact that I do not think that it is the Commonwealth Relations Department which is the difficulty but the Treasury? Will my hon. Friend accept the fact that I do not really think that the Answer is very satisfactory because there are far too few people being accepted for hardship pensions arising out of those figures?

Mr. Hornby: My hon. Friend may like to know that out of a total of 35,000 former Federal officers and employees only 400 established officers have not been


offered employment under the Territorial Governments and the figure of only 23 applications for hardship so far received does not seem to me to be altogether unsatisfactory.

Mr. Bottomley: In view of the fact that the numbers are so small and that, as I believe, assurances were given to the civil servants when they were over here that sympathetic consideration would be given to their claims, could not the hon. Gentleman go just a little further and meet their wishes?

Mr. Hornby: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that every claim for hardship consideration has been looked at on its own individual merits. I am sure that this is the wish of the House.

Dame Irene Ward: Can my hon. Friend say if people who have been offered jobs have been offered jobs with comparable salaries and comparable conditions with those under which they were engaged at the time when Federation was broken up? Is not that the important point? I mean, he must think we are awful mugs if we accept that as a really satisfactory Answer—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Unless I am misreading something through reading it hurriedly it seems to me that the hon. Lady's words are related more to her next Question. Perhaps I had better call her for her next Question.

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies what arrangements have been made for suitable employment for ex-civil servants of the Central African Federation returning to this country; and whether the liquidating agency has fulfilled the financial responsibilities placed upon it in respect of these men and women.

Mr. Hornby: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Loveys) by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of Technical Co-operation on 25th February. The Liquidating Agency has already made terminal benefit payments to over 4,000 ex-Federal employees amounting to approximately £2 million.

Dame Irene Ward: Yes, but is my hon. Friend aware that though that is

a very satisfactory Answer from the Departmental point of view, what I want to know is whether, when these people have come over here, they have been told how to seek jobs? I have had people coming to see me who have not been given any idea, any guidance of any kind whatsoever. So far as the liquidating agency is concerned, there have been some quite abnormal delays. Therefore, even if my hon. Friend thinks he is satisfied, is he aware that I am not satisfied?

Mr. Hornby: I think my hon. Friend is always very adept at making her own feelings known to both my right hon. Friend and myself, and to the House. On the question of delays, we are anxious to make certain that the absolute minimum of delay occurs. One case has been brought to my attention by my hon. Friend, and the reasons for the delay there were beyond the control of the Government.

Mr. H. Clark: Could my hon. Friend tell us if ex-Federal civil servants have been given the same facilities as those offered to ex-members of the Colonial Service in Territories which we have ceased to govern?

Mr. Hornby: The facilities are available to all officers who were recruited in the United Kingdom.

Oral Answers to Questions — SWAZILAND

Mr. S. Kitching

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for the Commonwealth and the Colonies if he will consent to the purchase of Mr. Sydney Kitching's farms in Swaziland by the Swaziland National Council so as to assist him to comply with the Commissioner's request to leave the territory by 30th June.

Mr. Fisher: The consent of the British Government to such a purchase is not required.

Mr. Swingler: Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that Mr. Kitching was arrested in South Africa last week during a business visit, and that he has been held incommunicado under the 90-day Act and that not even the British Consul is being allowed to see him at the moment despite the fact that he is the


holder of a British passport? In view of the fact that the Swaziland Commissioner has required him to clear up his affairs, and he wishes to clear up his affairs, in Swaziland by 30th June, would the hon. Gentleman consult with the Foreign Office to make representations to the South African Government either to bring Mr. Kitching to trial or else release him in order to enable him to get on with the sale of his farms in Swaziland?

Mr. Fisher: Mr. Kitching was not deported to South Africa but went there voluntarily. He did not have to leave Swaziland till 30th June. He has not claimed political asylum. I do not think that the Secretary of State should direct the local Government to buy land unless they wish it. If the Swaziland National Council wish to acquire the land, I have no doubt that the Commissioner will give his approval.

Mr. Bottomley: Is not this interfering with the liberty of a British subject who has been detained in the Union? This has happened before, and we ought to make representations. Further, this gentleman is deprived of the opportunity of selling his land before the given date. Surely arrangements ought to be made for him to carry out his legitimate business?

Mr. Fisher: No. I think there is some misapprehension. He appears to be a South African national. I think he has dual nationality, in fact, so I believe that the Government have no locus standi in making representations to the South African Government about this.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Could the hon. Gentleman tell the House why Mr. Kitching has been asked to leave Swaziland by 30th June?

Mr. Fisher: That is quite a long story. He was granted a two years' temporary residence permit when he entered Swaziland in 1961. Application for renewal I think was rejected. He appealed, and the appeal was disallowed, but the Commissioner has allowed him to remain in the Territory up to 30th June, which was much longer than he should have been there, to enable him to settle his affairs.

Mr. Swingler: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Kitching has been, and

has shown that he is, anxious to negotiate the sale of his farms in Swaziland to the Swaziland National Council in order to be able to quit Swaziland by 30th June, but the obstacle now is that he is being held under arbitrary arrest under the 90-day Act in South Africa? Would the hon. Gentleman, therefore, as responsible for the Government of Swaziland, make representations through the Foreign Office, as Mr. Kitching is the holder of a British passport, to the South African Government either to release him or to bring him to trial?

Mr. Fisher: No doubt Mr. Kitching is anxious to make arrangements to get rid of his farms, but it is not our fault that he voluntarily crossed the border to South Africa and put himself into this difficulty. However, as he has dual nationality I will certainly take legal advice as to whether we have any locus standi. I doubt if we have, but if we have, I will consult with the Foreign Office Ministers about this case.

Refugees from South Africa

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for the Commonwealth and the Colonies how many refugees from South Africa are now in Swaziland; and what action is being taken by the Government to enable them to find jobs and homes.

Mr. Fisher: 43, excluding dependents. 17 have obtained employment. One is attending school.

Mr. Swingler: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that all possible action is taken at the moment to ensure that all those who are placed in this very difficult position are given the opportunity either to seek political asylum in the United Kingdom, or, if they wish to stay in Swaziland, to get accommodation and employment?

Mr. Fisher: Twenty-six of these refugees have already been granted asylum and 17 applications are still under consideration, mainly because the people concerned have not yet attended for interviews. As for employment and accommodation, I really think that where there is in the territory unemployment and a shortage of houses, the local Swazi inhabitants must be given priority over people who come into their territory.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTHERN RHODESIA

University and Teaching Hospital

Dr. Dickson Mabon: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies whether the recent offer by Her Majesty's Government to help finance the University of Rhodesia and Nyasaland makes provision for assisting the proposed new teaching hospital and medical school in Salisbury.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies whether he will now make a statement about the outcome of the recent conference in Salisbury relating to the future of the University College of Rhodesia and Nyasaland and the associated teaching hospital.

Mr. Sandys: I would refer the hon. Members to the Answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) on 21st April.

Dr. Mabon: Does the Secretary of State realise that this does not lead us very much further forward? Would he give us an assurance that the Government will be concerned about the medical school in particular, because this is a matter of very great concern in this Territory, and this university is perhaps one of the last vestiges of the reasons which made the establishment of the Federation worth while?

Mr. Sandys: That was made clear in the Answer to which I referred.

Mr. Jenkins: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this medical school was set up under the aegis of the University of Birmingham and could award Birmingham degrees, and that there is very great concern in the University of Birmingham that this very important development is now likely to fail because of the want of a relatively small amount of money over a limited interim period? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that it will not fail?

Mr. Sandys: We recognise the importance of the college and of the medical faculty, and I have already announced that we have said that we are prepared to make a substantial contribution towards maintaining it, but the

talks are not yet concluded, and so I cannot say more this afternoon.

Mr. Bottomley: Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this has a political significance, in so far as the more educated Africans there are the better opportunities there will be for them to take part in the administration in Southern Rhodesia? Would he consult the Southern Rhodesian Government to see if anything can be done to provide this kind of education?

Mr. Sandys: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman understands. We are in the middle of discussions with the Government of Southern Rhodesia on this question of financing the continuance of the college.

African Education

Dr. Dickson Mabon: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies what financial assistance is being given to the Southern Rhodesian Government in respect of African education; and if he will make a statement about the future policy of Her Majesty's Government in this respect.

Mr. Sandys: A loan of £355,000 towards African education was made to the Government of Southern Rhodesia in 1962. As already announced, we have offered to make a substantial contribution towards the expenses of the multi-racial university college in Salisbury.

Dr. Mabon: Is not this a quite inadequate sum, considering the enormity of the task? This is one constructive way in which the United Kingdom could pay towards solving the enormous problem of trying to get responsible Government—so-called—in Southern Rhodesia as a coalition between whites and blacks. In the process of the present discussions, will not he look at this again and give a larger sum for African education?

Mr. Sandys: We are due to have discussions with each of the three Territories to examine the financial consequences to them of the dissolution of the Federation. We are quite prepared to discuss with the Government of Southern Rhodesia, if they so wish, questions of assistance for African education.

Mr. P. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that hon. Members on both sides of the House who are interested in African education think that the most practical way of advancing both the, political and economic cause out there is by spending more money on education, particularly technical education?

Constitution

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies what reply has been sent to the communication of the Governor of Southern Rhodesia forwarding to him the resolution of the Legislature of that Territory seeking to petition Her Majesty to remove from Her Majesty's Government all discretionary powers in the Southern Rhodesia Constitution.

Mrs. Castle: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies what reply he has sent to the petition agreed to by the Southern Rhodesian legislature on 23rd March, calling for an amendment to section 3 of the Southern Rhodesian Constitution of 1961, which has been sent to him.

Mr. Sandys: The petition has not as yet been forwarded to us.

Mr. Brockway: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the petition was endorsed by a majority in the Legislature and that it asks Her Majesty to remove from Her Majesty's Government their discretionary powers in Southern Rhodesia? Since the terms of the petition are known, will he give an assurance that, when it is received, Her Majesty's Government will not withdraw their powers in Southern Rhodesia until a majority of the people there have the right to elect the Government of Southern Rhodesia?

Mr. Sandys: I am certainly not going to comment on a petition to the Queen which has not been received.

Mrs. Castle: We have all read full details of the petition. Is this not a very curious and oblique way of gaining a recognition of independence? Will the right hon. Gentleman seize the opportunity, here in this House today, to warn the Europeans in Southern Rhodesia that Her Majesty's Government will under no circumstances grant

independence to Southern Rhodesia until the majority of its people are exercising full democratic rights?

Mr. Sandys: Personally, I am very glad that we have not yet received it; but if the hon. Lady asks many more supplementary questions, I have no doubt that it will be in the next post.

Mr. Bottomley: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that a Motion dealing with the subject has been passed in the House? If he is aware of that, is he not in a position to say that he will not agree to the amendment to Section 3 of the Constitution? As the assurance has been given before, what harm is there in repeating it now?

Mr. Sandys: It would be quite improper for me to comment on a resolution passed by the Assembly of Southern Rhodesia before the Governor had taken steps to send it on to us. We had far better be thankful that this resolution has not bean forwarded to us.

Mr. Gower: With reference to the suggestion that we should warn the people of Southern Rhodesia, is it not time that we started to speak in kinder terms, of the people of Southern Rhodesia who, 20 years ago, came to our aid when we were in a desperate plight?

Mr. Sandys: I am sure that we all recognise the part which Southern Rhodesia has played in the past, in two world wars and many other ways.

Independence

Mr. Oram: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies, in view of the coming to power of the new Government in Southern Rhodesia, if he will give an assurance that it remains Her Majesty's Government's policy to grant independence only to a representative Government.

Mr. Sandys: The policy of the British Government as already announced remains unchanged.

Mr. Oram: As successive political changes in Southern Rhodesia in recent years have led to increasingly white racialist Governments, is it not increasingly important that the Government at Westminster should make it clear that


they recognise their responsibilities for the whole population of Southern Rhodesia, white and black? In view of the most recent change, is not a more detailed and forthcoming answer than we have just heard necessary in the present circumstances?

Mr. Sandys: Of course we recognise our responsibilities for the whole population of any territory for which we are responsible, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would expect me to make an elaboration of an important issue of policy in reply to a supplementary question.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS

Former African Colonies

Mr. Hastings: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies what steps he takes to ensure that the policies and views of Her Majesty's Government are known in former African Colonies.

Mr. Hornby: We are in constant touch with our Commonwealth partners in Africa. British High Commissioners there, as in other Commonwealth countries, are fully alive to the need to explain our views and policies to the Governments concerned.

Mr. Hastings: Would not my hon. Friend agree that assistance with information services and Government Press agencies is a legitimate and important way in which our views and advice would be valuable? Is he further aware that there are reasons to suspect that in Kenya and Tanganyika such news agencies are being set up with the assistance of the Czechs and Tass Agency? Would it not be better if such help were provided by us, or at least by someone with a free Press?

Mr. Hornby: We are always very ready to consider requests for assistance with the setting up of Press agencies as well as with any other project. The Kenya Government announced the other day the setting up of a news agency on 20th February this year, and I understand that it makes use both of Reuter's and the Tass services.

Mr. W. Hamilton: Does the hon. Gentleman know whether all these

Governments are aware of the fact that we are continuing to supply arms to South Africa and what their attitude is to that policy?

Mr. Hornby: That is a totally different question.

Oral Answers to Questions — ST. VINCENT

Legislative Council

Mr. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies what decision about the holding of new elections has now been taken by the Administrator of St. Vincent.

Mr. Sandys: The Administrator has decided not to dissolve the Legislative Council at present.

Mr. Chapman: This is monstrous. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Commission of Inquiry which looked into the interference by Mrs. Joshua in the Public Works Department discovered quite improper and illegal acts that she was carrying out and also showed, in paragraph 11(c), that Mr. Joshua, the Chief Minister, was involved himself? If the Administrator is in difficulty because he needs, so to speak, the consent of the Chief Minister to a dissolution, how does the right hon. Gentleman expect the Chief Minister to be willing to agree to a dissolution or to recommend one when he himself is involved in illegalities and improprieties?

Mr. Sandys: I do not accept the hon. Member's allegations. The inquiry reported unfavourably upon one Minister, who has resigned.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: The report, in at least two cases, indicated that the Chief Minister himself was involved in his wife's improprieties. Will not the right hon. Gentleman look into this again? Is it not better for this country, while giving generous help and great respect to the degree of self-government that a territory has, to act very firmly when there are improprieties like this?

Mr. Sandys: Under the Constitution the Administrator has the right to dissolve, after consultation with the Chief Minister. In a territory like this, which is in an advanced state of constitutional


progress, it is desirable not to act contrary to the advice of Ministers if this can be avoided, and there are certain matters which are still being looked into in the territory. For the moment I am prepared to accept the judgment of the Administrator, in whom I have every confidence.

Mr. Chapman: But the Chief Minister is involved—he is shown to be by paragraph 11(c)—because he actually turned up with some of the money to pay illegally some of the road gangs. Although it was nothing to do with him lie was helping out his wife's improprieties. If he is involved, how does the Secretary of State expect him to advise his own dissolution? Surely we must now use our reserve power against the Chief Minister.

Mr. Sandys: The hon. Gentleman has merely repeated his former question.

Mr. Chapman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply and the repudiation of responsibility by the Secretary of State, I beg to give notice that shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN RHODESIA

British South Africa Company

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies what discussions have taken place with the Government of Northern Rhodesia on the termination of the agreement with the British South Africa Company under which the company receives royalties on copper and other mineral production in that territory.

Mr. Sandys: Some preliminary discussions took place last year between the then coalition Government of Northern Rhodesia and the company, at which the British Government were represented. The present Government of Northern Rhodesia have so far not discussed this matter with the British Government.

Mr. Brockway: Will the right hon. Gentleman take every step to end this robbery of the resources of Northern Rhodesia? Is he aware that even Sir Roy Welensky has declared that the agreement between the British South

Africa Company and the chiefs amounted to the cheating of ignorant chiefs to get hold of these mineral royalties? Is he aware that the company is taking £10 million a year from Northern Rhodesia as a toll on every bit of mineral extracted from the land? We abolished this system years ago in this country. Why should it be maintained there?

Mr. Sandys: I deplore the very exaggerated language used by the hon. Gentleman and I consider it to be an abuse of the protection of Parliamentary privilege.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what the people of Northern Rhodesia have ever obtained in return for the agreement between the Northern Rhodesian Government and the British South Africa Company?

Mr. Sandys: I do not think that that is very relevant.

Oral Answers to Questions — HIGH COMMISSION TERRITORIES

South African Refugees

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies what steps are now being taken to prevent South African refugees in the High Commission Territories being trained as saboteurs for use against South Africa, Southern Rhodesia or the Portuguese provinces.

Mr. Sandys: I am not aware that any such training is taking place in the High Commission Territories.

Mr. Wall: Without in any way disagreeing with the principle of political refuge, may I ask my right hon. Friend to look into the question of political refugees being assisted in transit through Bechuanaland to other Commonwealth countries to be trained as saboteurs against South Africa?

Mr. Sandys: I cannot exercise any control over the intentions of persons who leave the High Commission Territories, which is what my hon. Friend is asking me to do. As regards activities inside the High Commission Territories, I think that the House knows that it is


an offence to conspire in the High Commission Territories to commit an act outside the Territories which would be unlawful if it were committed within them.

Mr. Stonehouse: Will the right hon. Gentleman give facilities to refugees who want to leave Basutoland?

Mr. Sandys: We do our best, but Basutoland is in a rather difficult geographical position.

Oral Answers to Questions — NYASALAND

Political Murder and Intimidation (Allegations)

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary or State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies what reply he has made to the request by the Mbadwa Council for a commission of inquiry into allegations of political murder and intimidation in Nyasaland.

Mr. Sandys: I have asked the Governor to inform the Council that I do not consider that the situation warrants the appointment of a commission of inquiry.

Mr. Wall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this petition alleges that there have been 50 political murders in Nyasaland, including murders of members of Jehovah's Witnesses? Should not these allegations be looked into?

Mr. Sandys: I know about that figure, but it has not been substantiated. The incidents referred to resulted in nine murders, some of which appear to have had no political connection.

Oral Answers to Questions — HONG KONG

Passports

Mr. Snow: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies what are the requirements demanded of Hong Kong domiciled persons of Chinese race before British passports are issued to them; and whether such requirements are made known to the Government of India.

Mr. Fisher: Evidence of birth in Hong Kong, or naturalisation, and of intention to travel are required. These are not exceptional requirements by a passport issuing authority and no special

intimation to other Governments is therefore necessary.

Mr. Snow: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that Answer is in conflict with the information given to me by the chief immigration officer of Hong Kong, who stated that no passport would be issued to a person of Chinese race who had not been known to that officer for eight years? Will the hon. Gentleman make representations to the Government of India to see that the treatment meted out to British passport carrying Chinese from Hong Kong passing through India in transit is not repeated?

Mr. Fisher: I will certainly check whether the hon. Gentleman's information or mine is correct. Representations have already been made to the Indian Government which has felt unable to accede to them. I do not think that it would be profitable to pursue the matter.

Mr. Snow: I personally saw two Hong Kong subjects carrying British passports subjected to humiliating treatment at Bombay while in transit. Surely as British subjects they are entitled to claim full protection from Her Majesty's Government. Why did they not get it?

Mr. Fisher: I know about that case, but the two Chinese concerned have not complained about their treatment.

Mr. Snow: Oh yes, they have.

Employment and Housing, New Territories

Dr. Bray: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies what steps are being taken in Hong Kong to provide employment and housing in the more northerly parts of the New Territories, where ample land is available.

Mr. Fisher: A satellite town of over 1 million inhabitants is being developed in the Tsuen Wan and Kwai Chung area and the possibility of further development at Castle Peak and Sha Tin is being examined. Further to the north there are plans for the development of some rural townships including provision for minor industrial areas.

Dr. Bray: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the rapid population growth


of Hong Kong is continuing apace and that the more northerly schemes to which he refers should be given a high priority in order to reduce the cost of development and to link employment with housing, which is absolutely vital in this Colony?

Mr. Fisher: Yes, I know. The speed and extent of development are governed by the difficulty of acquiring the land, which is held mainly in a very large number of small peasant holdings, and by the need to provide services, especially water, and adequate access by road and sea from the port of Victoria.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRINIDAD

Loan

Mr. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies what loan he has now offered to Trinidad; what are the terms of interest and repayment; and what has been the response of Trinidad to this offer.

Mr. Sandys: The discussions are not yet completed.

Mr. Chapman: May we have an assurance that the original offer which was made at the very high rate of interest of 6 per cent. with an immediate repayment of capital and no period of moratorium, will at least be reconsidered? Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware of the pressure from both sides of the House in recent debates for the British Government, as has been recommended by several international bodies, to begin to offer loans at lower rates of interest and with a period before repayment of capital is demanded?

Mr. Sandys: I could comment on what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I think that it would be better for him if I reserved anything I had to say until the negotiations were completed.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA

Million Acre Scheme

Mr. Longden: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies whether he will make a statement on the review of the Million Acre Scheme in Kenya.

Mr. Sandys: Yes, Sir, shortly.

Mr. Longden: Can my right hon. Friend also say whether the ex-Service personnel who went to settle in Kenya after the Second World War are now more or less happy about the situation?

Mr. Sandys: It would be very rash for me to say that anybody was entirely happy about the situation.

Oral Answers to Questions — BASUTOLAND

Technical Education

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies how many technical education places there are at present in schools and colleges in Basutoland; and what steps he is taking to increase them.

Mr. Fisher: There are 218 places at present. Plans for expansion are awaiting the publication of a report on manpower resulting from a recent I.L.O. survey.

Mr. Thomson: When does the hon. Gentleman expect to receive that report? Can he give an assurance that he will press ahead as fast as possible with the expansion of this very important and rather neglected sector of the education system?

Mr. Fisher: The report is not sent to Her Majesty's Government, but goes to the I.L.O. Its publication and so on would be a matter for the I.L.O. in consultation with the Government of Basutoland. I will go into what the hon. Gentleman has said in the second part of his supplementary question.

Oral Answers to Questions — BECHUANALAND

Constitution

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies when he expects to announce his decision about a new constitution for Bechuanaland; and when he proposes that new elections should be held.

Mr. Fisher: My right hon. Friend hopes to be able to make a statement very shortly.

Mr. Thomson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Can he give more


precise details about the timetable? Can he promise us that the statement will be made within the next week or two? Has it to be followed by a constitutional conference? Is there any possibility of having elections during the coming year?

Mr. Fisher: I cannot give a precise answer about the date. I hope that it will be possible to make a statement before the Whitsuntide Recess, but I would rather not anticipate what my right hon. Friend's statement will contain.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALAYSIA

Situation

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies if he will make a statement in respect of further developments in the conflict between Indonesia and the Federation of Malaysia as affecting British co-operation in the defence of the Federation.

Mr. Sandys: In the last fortnight Indonesian guerrillas have continued to ignore the cease-fire and have carried out hostile acts at more than a dozen places within Malaysian territory. Operations by the security forces to eliminate these intruders are being intensified.
The Malaysian authorities have reported further Indonesian inspired attempts at terrorism and sabotage in Malaya and Singapore, where there have been eleven bomb explosions in recent weeks.
All these developments further strengthen our resolve to support Malaysia in upholding her independence and territorial integrity.

Mr. Sorensen: Arising out of that reply, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there is any evidence of Philippino activity of a violent character? Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the conflicts along the frontiers are increasing or decreasing? Thirdly, in view of the recent election which seems to indicate wholehearted support for Malaysia from the Malayan peoples, is a fresh attempt being made to try to secure conciliation in this matter?

Mr. Sandys: There is nothing that we should like better than to see a peaceful solution. I know of no Philippino intervention.

Sir J. Duncan: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity of welcoming the statement by the Prime Minister of New Zealand, which was reported in the papers today?

Mr. Sandys: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALTA

Constitution

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies if he is aware that the interpretation section of the chapter on fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual in the constitution for independence proposed by the Government of Malta provides that nothing done by the Roman Catholic Church in the exercise of its spiritual powers and duties shall be held to be in contravention of any of the provisions of this chapter; and if, in view of clerical pressure on the voters at previous elections in Malta, this provision has been or will be approved by Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Sandys: I would refer to hon. Member to the Answer I gave to the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley) on the 24th April.

Mr. Driberg: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the inclusion of this important qualification in the constitution—its inclusion almost surreptitiously, in a mere interpretation section—goes far to nullify the effect of having a civil rights or human rights section in the constitution at all? Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, during his recent conversations with Archbishop Gonzi, he took the opportunity of drawing the Archbishop's attention to the late Pope's Encyclical, or indeed to the existence of the Vatican Council?

Mr. Sandys: I do not think that I want to go into what I said to the Archbishop and what he said to me. I do not propose, and I do not think that it would be right, to comment on any particular aspect of the draft constitution on which I may have to take a decision very shortly.

Mr. Wall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Church of Malta has always done, and will continue to do, its duty to guide its flock in spiritual and moral matters? Would my right hon. Friend, agree that the difficulty is to define the overlapping area where moral issues and political issues may conflict?

Mr. Sandys: That is precisely the difficulty.

Mr. Bottomley: Is it not odd that this important clause should appear in an interpretation section, and does the right hon. Gentleman think that the people in Malta can form a judgment when the document which is issued contains 65 pages, is written in legal jargon, and costs 2s. 6d. to buy?

Mr. Sandys: I did not draft it, but I think that broadly speaking the people of Malta have a very good idea of what the controversy is about.

Mr. Driberg: Since the right hon. Gentleman appeared to assent to the terms of the supplementary question by his hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), can he say whether he really regards it as the duty of a local hierarchy in the Roman Catholic Church to invent new mortal sins, such as reading a Labour newspaper?

Mr. Sandys: I have no comment.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRY (PUBLIC OWNERSHIP)

Mr. Webster: asked the Prime Minister whether he will appoint a committee to investigate the future of public ownership of industry.

The Prime Minister (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): No, Sir.

Mr. Webster: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that, apart from his overt intentions of nationalising steel, road haulage, the pharmaceutical industry, the industrial life offices, and the commanding heights of the economy, the Leader of the Opposition is on record as saying on I.T.V. a year ago that he regarded road haulage
not so much on the basis of buying off every lorry, every truck, every little back-street garage"—
I am quoting this for the sake of accuracy—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Verbatim quotations are out of order in a question. The hon. Member can summarise what was said.

Mr. Webster: The right hon. Gentleman talked about every little backstreet garage which had four or five broken down lorries, and the goodwill thereof. Is my right hon. Friend aware that this policy is causing great anxiety in the industry, that it is causing threats of unemployment in the road haulage industry, and that it is causing deep concern in industry which seeks freedom to move its goods and wares in the way that it finds most convenient?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition says a number of things which I find it extremely difficult to interpret. I hope that he will make it quite clear what he means on the subject of the nationalisation of road transport.

Mr. H. Wilson: Having made it quite clear in Signposts for the Sixties—of which I will send the right hon. Gentleman a copy if he cannot afford 6d. to buy it—may I ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that his own pronouncement about competition in the steel industry sounds a bit strange? Does he really believe that there is price competition in the steel industry?

The Prime Minister: I have looked at the Question very carefully. It does not deal with my pronouncements.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that it seems fashionable at the moment to make suggestions about nationalisation without giving any reasons at all, and will my right hon. Friend say that that example from the other side of the House will never be copied on this side of it?

Mr. Shinwell: If on some future occasion the right hon. Gentleman decides to institute an inquiry into the future of public ownership, will he also include an inquiry into whether private ownership has any future at all?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman must have misheard me. I said that I was not prepared to set up such an inquiry.

Oral Answers to Questions — AUTOMATION

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the accelerating impact of automation and its consequential effects in economic, social and other fields, he will consider advising the establishment of a Royal Commission to assess the problems likely to arise.

The Prime Minister: A good deal of research work is now in progress on the problems and the opportunities presented by automation. Reports on some of these projects will be published. These matters are engaging the continuous attention of the Government. I do not therefore think that a Royal Commission is called for.

Mr. Hamilton: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that there is a feeling in the country, and certainly among industrial workers, that the Government's attitude to this is one of almost criminal complacency; that thousands of jobs are already being lost, and that hundreds of thousands of jobs are likely to be lost in the near future in the coal mining and other industries as a direct result of automation? Does he believe, with his right hon. enemy the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), that this problem and others can be solved by free market operation, or does he believe in active Government intervention before the event occurs?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman recognises that at present unemployment is very low, but, as he also recognises, we have lately introduced the Industrial Training Bill which bears immediately on this problem. We are trying to enlist the co-operation of the trade union movement on retraining, which is very important, and some of the trade unions have a very full understanding of the problem. I hope that we shall get general co-operation from them.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: If it is true that all these thousands of jobs are being lost, can my right hon. Friend explain how it is that the unemployment figures are falling?

Mr. Bence: Not in Scotland.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH VIET-NAM

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Prime Minister to what extent the pledge he made to President Johnson to support United States' policy in South Viet-Nam was conditional upon observance of the 1954 Geneva Treaty, to which this country is a party.

The Prime Minister: Her Majesty's Government do not consider the United States policy of helping the Republic of Viet-Nam to resist Communist subversion inconsistent with the Geneva Agreement.

Mr. Zilliacus: Is not the Prime Minister aware that the import of reinforcements of men and materials by the United States is a violation of the Geneva Treaty; that the United States is, in effect, waging a war of intervention on behalf of a puppet dictatorship that was imposed upon a people who were themselves revolting against a previous dictatorship, and that under the Charter there is no right of intervention in the internal affairs of a country, even on the pretext of Communist subversion?

The Prime Minister: United States assistance to South Viet-Nam is given at the request of the Government of South Viet-Nam. There is, therefore, no question of intervention in their internal affairs. The help is given to assist them to resist subversion which, as the hon. Member knows as well as anyone else, is coming from the north.

Oral Answers to Questions — SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE (SPEECH)

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Secretary of State for Defence at Harrogate on foreign and economic affairs on Saturday 4th April represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Wyatt: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman does not deny that the Minister made the speech as reported in The Times, as he did last Thursday. Is he aware that the Minister said in this speech that he approved the idea of pooling nuclear weapons? Can the Prime Minister explain how that policy differs


from the policy of the Labour Party, which evidently makes the Prime Minister so cross?

The Prime Minister: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman would read out the quotation. [HON. MEMBERS: "It would be out of order."] Then perhaps he will send me the quotation, which I can look at further. Nothing that I have seen suggests that the speech that I have read, or the accounts of it which I have read, does not conform to Government policy.

Mr. Wyatt: The report in The Times said—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]—the Prime Minister asked me for it; I am trying to give it. The Minister said, according to the report, that the time would come
when we might pool nuclear weapons".

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Webster: On a point of order. Are verbatim quotations in order, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Some people are better at summarising the subject matter than others are. It remains the fact that verbatim quotations from speeches are out of order in Questions. In this case the dew of mercy came into my eye because—if I may say so—the Prime Minister a little bit invited it.

The Prime Minister: The sentence that caught my eye in my right hon. Friend's speech was that
it would need Solomon himself to judge issues of this kind and that Mr. Wilson…

Hon. Members: Order.

The Prime Minister: This is the speech of the Minister. He said that Mr. Wilson had not got Solomon; he had only got Mr. George Brown.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH AFRICA (SUPPLY OF ARMS)

Mr. Oram: asked the Prime Minister if, at the forthcoming Commonwealth Conference, he will raised the question of a joint Commonwealth policy on the export of arms to South Africa.

The Prime Minister: I do not propose to depart from the usual practice

of treating the agenda of Prime Ministers' Conferences as confidential.

Mr. Oram: Is not the chief virtue of the modern Commonwealth its multiracial character? Is not that the reason why South Africa could not remain a member? Therefore, is not the forthcoming Conference an excellent opportunity to make a joint protest against apartheid, not only in words but by action, such as an arms ban, which the South African Government could not ignore?

The Prime Minister: A joint protest has already been made by the Commonwealth against apartheid. I have no doubt that every member of the Commonwealth is against it. The arrangement about arms as between the United Kingdom and South Africa is quite well known. It relates to the Simonstown Agreement and the external defence of South Africa.

Mr. P. Williams: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the Simonstown Agreement and the continuance of the supply of arms to South Africa for specific purposes are in the interests of ourselves and South Africa, and of the freedom of the Commonwealth?

The Prime Minister: I always have very much in mind—and I hope the whole House will—when considering the Simonstown Agreement, that if at any time in the future we have to go to the assistance of our allies in Aden, India or Malaya, the short route might be cut and stopped. The Simonstown Agreement is of enormous value in that respect.

Mr. H. Wilson: Since the Prime Minister last week again repeated that it is now the policy of the Government to exercise control over shipments and to stop the shipment of those supplies which are used for apartheid, despite the fact that his Ministers were saying precisely the opposite, right up to last May—

The Prime Minister: They were not.

Mr. Wilson: I refer to the speech made on the Motion for the Adjournment last May by the President of the Board of Trade. In view of what the Prime Minister was saying last week, would he not now be well advised, in


order to prove the Government's good faith in this matter, to publish all the figures of arms shipments to South Africa in 1963? I have asked for these before and have been refused.

The Prime Minister: I would not consider making known the shipment of arms. We never do. This would be entirely contrary to the practice which all Governments have always operated, and I must decline the right hon. Gentleman's invitation. But I must ask him and his colleagues to have a look at the strategic value of the Simonstown Agreement. In this matter they must not allow their political prejudices to prejudice the possibilities of defending the Commonwealth.

Oral Answers to Questions — PENSIONERS (CONCESSIONARY FARES)

Mr. Short: asked the Prime Minister what reply he has sent to the two letters he has received from Newcastle-on-Tyne, East, Labour Party regarding pensioners' concessionary fares.

The Prime Minister: I will send the hon. Member a copy of my reply.

Mr. Short: When the Prime Minister emerged does not he recollect that he undertook to reply to all letters? Does he think that a couple of lines from his secretary is an adequate reply to two large meetings of old people? On the merits of the case, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last Friday a large number of his hon. Friends again blocked the Bill? Is not he now really ashamed of himself and his party for their miserable and inhuman attitude in this matter?

The Prime Minister: The reply was a perfectly courteous one. The Government consider that the best way of helping old people so that they can fulfil their legitimate needs is to give them cash payments and not to subsidise any particular service.

Mr. H. Wilson: Since I have helped to sponsor a Bill on this question, and since at least 1,000 of my constituents are involved, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he thinks that there is any logic or humanity in a situation which allows a local authority to grant free

bus passes on any route where those passes were in force in November, 1954, but denies it to all old-age pensioners and others who are living on routes on new housing estates where, by the very nature of things, these passes could not have been given in 1954? Is he aware that some of my hon. Friends and I have corresponded with the Minister of Transport, and that we have received a flat negative to any proposal that old-age pensioners moving to new housing estates should be put in the same position as those covered by my hon. Friend's Act of 1955?

The Prime Minister: I can only repeat what I have just said, that we think that the best way of helping old people in need is to supplement their pensions with cash. That cash can be used in the way best suited to each individual.

Mr. Wilson: Why does not the Prime Minister do that? Secondly, will he again tell us why his party supported the 1955 Act in respect of old-age pensioners and the 1954 routes but will do nothing to help old-age pensioners in my constituency who, to my knowledge, are suffering real hardship because they have to spend 2s. or 3s. whenever they visit their relatives in the area from which they have just moved?

The Prime Minister: We can do nothing but disagree about this. The Government believe in one method of assistance to old people and the right hon. Gentleman and his party feel that another way is better.

Mr. Kershaw: On a point of order. Is it not very unfortunate that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) did not ask his Question No. Q6, for this has deprived English hon. Members of an opportunity to make invaluable suggestions?

Mr. Speaker: That does not give rise to a point of order.

Mr. Montgomery: While I am not particularly impressed by people who are trying to make politics out of this issue, nevertheless this is a very human problem in Newcastle because we have concessionary fares on some buses but not on the new diesel buses which are taking over. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that when a concession has been made and is then taken


away from people, it hurts them much more than if they had never had the concession in the first place.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. But all sorts of old people have all sorts of different needs, and our opinion, therefore, is that the best way is to supplement their pension with cash. [Interruption.] If hon. and right hon. Members sit muttering on the Opposition Front Bench it is extremely difficult for them to hear. It is a perfectly ligitimate point of view to take that the best way to deal with the differing needs of pensioners is to supplement their pensions with cash.

Mr. H. Wilson: But does the right hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "One man band."] I have as much right to speak as anyone. Unlike some hon. Members I made this a main feature in the last election campaign. Is the Prime Minister suggesting that where we have two old-age pensioners living within 100 yards of each other, one of whom is entitled to free bus passes and the other, because of this historical accident and the Government's obstruction, is not allowed to have a concessionary bus pass, this creates the sort of situation which he described? Since, unfortunately, it is clear that he knows nothing about the situation, will he look at it again?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman's assumptions are wrong.

BASUTOLAND

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper;

Mr. HOCKING: To ask the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies whether he will make a statement about the progress of the Basutoland Conference.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies (Mr. Duncan Sandys): The conference is still proceeding, but I can give the House an interim report.
The Basutoland delegation have unanimously asked that Basutoland should become independent at the end of a preparatory period of one year after new elections, to be held before the end of 1964.
The delegation have made it clear that they fully appreciate the serious economic problems which confront Basutoland and that they are not asking Britain for any assurance of continued military protection after independence.
I have informed them that the British Government do not wish to withhold independence longer than the people of Basutoland think necessary, but that, in our opinion, a preparatory period of one year may well prove insufficient.
We are disposed to approve a constitution for independence on the general lines recommended by the delegation. But we consider that the important decision regarding the timing of independence should be left over until the new Basutoland Parliament has had the opportunity to weigh carefully the large issues involved.
If the Lower House, which is to be elected on the basis of universal adult suffrage, should at any time not earlier than one year after the new elections, pass a resolution asking for independence the British Government will seek to give effect to their wishes as soon as possible.
The Basutoland delegation have asked that, in the interval between now and independence, the British Government should have responsibilities for external affairs, defence and internal security and should continue to finance their budgetary deficit and provide capital assistance. We shall be prepared to continue for the present to bear these responsibilities, provided that we retain the powers which we consider necessary to discharge them satisfactorily.

Mr. Brockway: While welcoming that statement, may I ask whether any discussions have taken place about increased economic assistance from this country in view of the isolated situation of Basutoland in South Africa?

Mr. Sandys: Naturally, we should like to give them more money, but we are giving them as much as we can afford, having regard to the many other calls upon our resources.

Mr. Wall: While also welcoming the statement, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether it is clear that with independence sovereignty passes to His Highness the Paramount Chief?

Mr. Sandys: I do not want to anticipate the terms of the future constitution, because that is a matter which we are discussing at the moment.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[The Prime Minister.]

BRITISH NATIONALITY (No. 2)

3.35 p.m.

Mr. John Parker: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the acquisition of citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies by certain classes of persons who would otherwise be stateless; to restrict the grounds on which persons may be deprived of such citizenship where deprivation would render them stateless; to repeal section 20(4) and section 21 of the British Nationality Act 1948; and to extend the powers exercisable under that Act with respect to British protected persons.
I am asking leave to introduce a Bill which is substantially the same as that which the House gave me leave to introduce on 16th July last year. Leave was given on that occasion rather too late for the Bill to be passed into law last Sesion, but it was published. Various alterations have been made since publication as a result of suggestions made by individuals and by the Government Departments affected by it.
The primary purpose of the proposed Bill is to enable the United Kingdom to ratify the United Nations Convention for the reduction of statelessness, which was drawn up in 1961. There are two legal theories upon which the laws of nationality are based. One is that all persons born in a country have the nationality of that country. The other is that all legitimate children, born wherever they may be in the world, should have the nationality of their father. On the whole, those two ideas were incorporated in the British Nationality Act, 1948, which codified the existing law.
Certain anomalies, however, remain. I will deal, first, with the theory that all persons born in a country should have the nationality of that country.

There are certain exceptions in our law, mainly concerned with the children of embassy staff. These are considered as stateless even when they are the children of British mothers. On the other hand, it is a fact that under our law all illegitimate children of foreign women born in this country are given British nationality.
The second theory—that all legitimate children of British males born abroad should be counted as British—is not accepted in all countries. A number of countries have quite different laws, particularly the Scandinavian countries and Switzerland. For example, if a British girl is pregnant, but is not married, and goes to Switzerland to have the child, that child will be stateless.
The Bill would propose to clear up these various anomalies by giving, the right to apply for British nationality to all children of British mothers and fathers, legitimate or illegitimate, whether born in this country or born abroad, who would otherwise be stateless. Children born in this country not to a British mother would be able to apply for registration if otherwise they would be stateless.
One or two other points are dealt with in the proposed Bill. The first concerns foundlings who have no nationality because their parents are not known. If they are found in this country they will be given British nationality.
Another question concerns deprivation of citizenship. Under the Bill the Home Secretary would surrender his right to take away British citizenship from any citizen if, by doing so, it would make that person stateless. Finally, there is a Clause at the end which extends the powers of the Secretary of State with respect to British-protected persons in any case where these problems arise.
I thank the Home Office for its help in preparing and drafting the Bill, and particularly in getting other Government Departments to agree to its provisions. There have been many discussions on the matter, and I hope that all the problems have now been satisfactorily solved. The Bill would implement the United Nations Convention and would be a small but useful reform which would do justice to a number of


unfortunate persons. I have much pleasure in recommending it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Parker, Sir Robert Cary, Sir Barnett Stross, Miss Joan Vickers, and Mr. Charles Royle.

BRITISH NATIONALITY (No. 2)

Bill to provide for the acquisition of citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies by certain classes of persons who would otherwise be stateless; to restrict the grounds on which persons may be deprived of such citizenship where deprivation would render them stateless; to repeal section 20(4) and section 21 of the British Nationality Act 1948; and to extend the powers exercisable under that Act with respect to British protected persons, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday and to be printed. [Bill 133.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[14TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1964–65

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a further sum, not exceeding £30 be granted to Her Majesty, towards defraying the charges for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1965, for the following services connected with Maritime Nuclear Propulsion, namely:


CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1964–65



£


Class IV, Vote 11, Ministry of Transport
10


Class IV, Vote 14, Transport (Shipping and Special Services)
10


Class VII, Vote 3, Atomic Energy
10


Total
£30

MARINE NUCLEAR PROPULSION

3.41 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: I am sure that the Committee would want me, first, to express good wishes to Earl Alexander of Hillsborough on his recovery, and also to express admiration for the persistent and pertinacious way in which he raised this question in another place.
This is another chapter in the discussions that we have had on nuclear propulsion for shipping. I asked the Government about this when we were discussing the Shipbuilding Credit Bill. I received no response from the Government. Lord Alexander pursued the matter in another place. It was only after, for the third time, that he had been unable to get any satisfactory response from the Government that we are resuming the debate here.
I want to put this debate in its proper context. We must remember that when the Conservative Party took office we were the biggest shipbuilding country in


the world. That is no longer true, and it has not been true for years. We allowed Japan to overtake us, and without question world shipbuilding is now dominated by Japan. Last year not only Japan, but Germany, overtook us in shipbuilding.
It is significant that these were the two nations we defeated in the war. There is not the slightest doubt that the rehabilitation of shipbuilding in both Japan and Germany was a matter of Anglo-American policy. Our criticism of the Government has been that they have not shown sufficient concern, sufficient positive interest, in the British maritime industries. It is clear not only that Japanese and German shipbuilding industries took their opportunity, but that they were backed by their Governments in taking their opportunity. It is equally clear that neither the Japanese nor the Germans could have built up or sustained their present shipbuilding capacity unless they had been supported by their Governments.
It is against this background that we are apprehensive about the disregard the Government have shown towards British shipbuilding. Both sides of the House of Commons welcomed the Shipbuilding Credit Bill, but that was to aid British shipbuilding at a relatively low level of activity. It was temporary. The latest Lloyd's returns show that new orders have already drastically fallen and that the outlook is far from encouraging.
It is against this background that we are apprehensive about the Government's attitude towards nuclear propulsion for shipping. We are apprehensive, not only because the Government have neglected our old traditional industries, but also because they appear to show far too little concern about the new industries. There is not the slightest question about the importance of nuclear propulsion to shipping and shipbuilding. When, eight years ago, I wrote about the prospects of shipbuilding I concluded with the qualification that nuclear propulsion might completely change those prospects.
May I say this to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary? This is faint praise. More sense has

been spoken from the Government benches on this subject by the hon. and gallant Gentleman than by his colleagues. Two years ago the hon. and gallant Gentleman said that nuclear propulsion might shake and transform the world of shipping. He said that—
we might see a change-over to nuclear ships comparable in scale and in speed to the changeover to motor ships between the wars."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th July, 1962; Vol. 663, c. 1987.]
There is a feeling abroad now that, sooner or later, the probably sooner than most of us think, shipping will go nuclear. The anxiety we feel today is aggravated by the fact that, in comparison with other competing shipbuilding countries, we seriously seem to be losing ground. This is not only the case of the United States and Russia. It is the case of other European countries and other shipbuilding countries. I am certain that the Committee will agree that there is no ground for complacency. Looking over past debates, it is surprising how complacent hon. Members opposite have been. There has been talk, for instance, of "retaining our customary lead over the United States." That is no longer true. It is equally no longer true that we are retaining our lead over other comparable shipbuilding countries.
The anxiety we feel about the present Government's attitude towards the problem of nuclear propulsion is aggravated not only by their disregard for our great maritime industries but also, as I have expressed in debate after debate—this is one of the major failures of the present Government—by their failure to provide adequate political, governmental, means for development exploitation, to provide for the technological development and research.
As I have said before, I myself do not complain of the scale and scope of research. What I complain about is that we do not get value for money. There is the failure of the Government in time to take advantage of and to exploit the opportunities provided by British research. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) spoke recently of £162 million of the taxpayers' money wasted on eight projects. Far more important than the financial waste, however great that may be, is the waste of opportunity.


We are living in an increasingly competitive world and we must keep pace with our competitors.
I concede immediately to the Secretary of State for Education and Science that not only is this especially true of nuclear propulsion for shipping, but that it is especially difficult in the field of nuclear propulsion for shipping. Different Departments are involved, with their different interests. Incidentally, I cannot think of a more undesirable combination than the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Minister of Transport. Apart from the personalities, there are different interests here which must be reconciled. There are different public corporations. I do not for a moment subscribe to all that Lord Coleraine has said about this, but this is a difficulty. There must be some governmental drive and initiative to deal with a problem like this.
It is a question not only of different Departments and different public authorities but the relationship of public authorities to private enterprise. We have here a new industry, a nuclear energy industry. We also have the conflicting interests of the different industries affected—for instance, power, and the maritime industries. There are these competing claims upon research.
In this context the Padmore Committee has done useful work, but what we have not had—this is what we have suffered from the whole time—is any serious effort to get the right instrument to promote the development we need. Instead—not surprisingly because the cardinal problem has not been tackled—we have had chaotic muddle and exasperating frustration expressed from all sides. This is not a partisan matter. Indeed, great concern has been expressed by all hon. Members.
The difficulties have not arisen because of the absence of political statements. There have been repeated political statements, but, unfortunately, they have, by and large, been irresponsible, have been made for political motives and have not related to the state of development. I remind hon. Members of the original project—the "floating power station," as it was to be—which, fortunately, never got off the drawing board. If it had it might have taxed the resources of even the British shipyards. As soon as we got over the Suez crisis, that was for-

gotten. That first project was the initial mistake of the Government—a proposition made for political ends; and the divorce between what has been expressed politically and what has been done by way of development has handicapped the development of nuclear propulsion right from the very first statement that the Government made.
The second phase or project came after years of progress reports in the form of statements from the Government Front Bench telling us that everything was going well. In the end the Government could delay no longer. Their bluff was called. They had to do something in view of the progress reports which had been given by the then Paymaster-General, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, it was only after years had gone by, when the Government were confronted with the lack of progress, that they resorted to the Galbraith Committee. That Committee eventually reported and, again—for the second time—it seemed that within the near future we would get a nuclear-propelled vessel afloat.
In February, 1960, the Minister of Transport invited tenders for a 65,000-ton tanker and by July of the same year five tenders had been received. Once again, we had a repetition of the cycle. Questions were repeatedly asked in Parliament. Evasive replies were given and, finally—18 months after the tenders had been invited—in November, 1961, the Government announced that they had decided not to accept any of the tenders.
This was the end of the second phase and the end of the second failure of the Government. It cost the taxpayer about £250,000 in compensation to the firms which had tendered. Far more important was the loss of time. If we are conducting this research in competition with other countries we cannot afford to waste time—

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: Was not the failure to produce an economic reactor the failure of the scientists and not of the Government? Surely the production of such an item is the job of the scientists, so that the Government cannot be held responsible.

Mr. Willey: I was in the process of referring to the Government's second project. I was specifically dealing with


the amount of time that had been wasted. Time was obviously wasted because the Government decided not to accept any of the tenders, although it took them 18 months to arrive at the conclusion that they did not want to accept any of them.
By deciding not to proceed with those tenders the Government admitted that they had made a mistake. It is equally obvious that they made that mistake at the expense of research, because the Parliamentary Secretary said last year, when we debated this matter:
It cannot truthfully be said that this contributed directly, in a technical way, to the present design of reactors."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th March, 1963; Vol. 674, c. 278.]
Time was wasted by abandoning the project and it is for the Government to adduce their reasons for wasting valuable time. The Government conceded that they had wasted time, because when they announced that they had abandoned the tenders and were unable to accept any of them they said, in effect, We must pursue a vigorous programme of research as a matter of urgency."
Other countries which have pursued nuclear propulsion programmes have made mistakes and run into difficulties. I have looked into the development of nuclear proplusion in Germany, one country which has overtaken us in this sphere. The difference between the German development and ours is that they have far more rapidly put their mistakes right and have settled the differences which have arisen between those engaged in research and development.
The complaint against Her Majesty's Government is that, through their indecision, procrastination and delay, we have lost time. This complaint was really conceded by the Government when they stated that we must pursue a third phase of development. In November, 1961, they announced that we would pursue a vigorous programme of research costing £3 million over three years. This programme would, we were told, be conducted by the Atomic Energy Authority in conjunction with the nuclear industry.
About a year later, in pursuance of this research, the Government announced that they had reduced the research to two designs; the Integrated Boiling Reactor, promoted by A.E.A., and the Vulcain

Spectral Shift Reactor, also promoted by the Authority but in association with Belgo-Nucleaire. One of the interesting features about this which has never been satisfactorily explained is how the Authority negotiated that project with Belgo-Nucleaire about six months before the decision was taken and announced by the Government to proceed with the design.
The definitive phase of the third stage was reached on 11th February last year, when the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan), said, in a dramatic announcement, that we were very near to the design being economically attractive. He added:
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport will very soon be discussing with all those concerned the arrangements for the construction, ownership and operation of such a vessel."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th February, 1963; vol. 671, c. 953.]
So for the third time it appeared that the Government were about to promote the building of a nuclear-propelled vessel. Optimism ruled everywhere and, as usual, the Government were congratulated on at last having made a decision.
Some of us regarded that as a political stunt, in much the same way as we had regarded the first announcement as a political stunt in the wake of Suez. The right hon. Gentleman made that announcement in a debate on the breakdown of the negotiations with the Common Market countries. His statement was made at a time when there was high unemployment in Britain's shipbuilding areas. The impression created by his statement was that a decision had at least been taken and was about to be implemented.
The Ministry of Transport issued a Press statement the same day, headed:
First U.K. nuclear merchant ship at sea in 1967.
It is important, when considering the designs, to recall that the Ministry's Press statement that day said:
Both these systems offer the prospect of being developed as economically attractive commercial propositions.
Two days later the Minister of Transport told us that talks had begun. In the same month the Parliamentary Secretary went even further and gave September of last year as the date line.
The Parliamentary Secretary also said—and this appeared relevant to the discussions which were apparently taking place:
I am not pretending for one moment that we can be certain that our present line of development will succeed and be economical But we can be sure of one thing, and that is that if we wait until we are certain, we shall lose the race."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February, 1963; Vol. 672, c. 1256.]
That was the position in February last year. Just to complete the account, it was during that month that the Minister for Science made what, until then, was the worst speech that he had made as Minister. He upset the Americans and the scientists and he made a violent attack on Captain Atkins, quite an unjustified attack, because he had been critical especially of the I.B.R.

The Lord President of the Council and Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Quintin Hogg): The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. What I attacked or criticised Captain Atkins for was saying that the Chief of the Atomic Energy Authority had procured his dismissal from Vickers, a statement which was strongly denied by Sir Roger Makins and which was not cleared up, supported, or withdrawn.

Mr. Willey: That was one of the matters dealt with by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He also dealt with the two designs which were then under consideration and the views about them expressed by Captain Atkins. He made a thoroughly unjustifiable attack on Captain Atkins personally.

Dame Irene Ward: Hear, hear. I agree with that.

Mr. Willey: In view of what has been said in another place, I should have thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would, on reflection, have had the grace to withdraw.
Last year, September came and passed and there was no action. At once, naturally, we had pessimism taking the place of the optimism which had followed the Prime Minister's statement. Last month, the Prime Minister said that a statement would be made as soon as Ministers had considered the Report of the Working Group. On 14th April, the Prime Minister said something which has great significance:

…there are various reactors available and the question is to decide between them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th April, 1964; Vol. 693, c. 233.]
In November, 1962, we were told that the designs had been reduced to two, I.B.R. and the Vulcain. Earlier last year we were told that not only had the designs been reduced to two, but that all the others were out. What, then does the Prime Minister mean? I understood that the designs under consideration had, in fact, been reduced to one because in spite of what was said by the right hon. and learned Gentleman about Captain Atkins, in spite of his attack upon Captain Atkins, the I.B.R. has now been eliminated.
Last month, in another place, the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, the Earl of Bessborough, said:
The work by the Atomic Energy Authority on the I.B.R. had been suspended for reasons in connection with the contentions put forward by Capt. Atkins, whom we all recognise as an eminent naval engineer. The main reason was that the design of the fuel elements entailed a long-term development programme."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 3rd March, 1964; Vol. 256, c. 113.]
To be fair to Lord Bessborough, in a later debate he said that he had been misreported and, of course, we accept this—and that the decision to give up the I.B.R. was, in fact, unconnected with the views of Captain Atkins. However, the fact remains that the I.B.R. has now been abandoned and Lord Bessborough's tribute to Captain Atkins stands, in spite of the intervention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The fact also remains that whether it is for the reasons given by Captain Atkins—like Lord Alexander, I believe that this is so—or whether it is not, Captain Atkins warned us a long time ago that the I.B.R. would be abandoned and, in the event, he has been proved right.
Now let us turn to the Vulcain. Lord Bessborough said in another place that this project was proceeding very satisfactorily. He said this before the Working Group's Report. I wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us whether this is the position. If it is, why has not progress been made since the Prime Minister's statement in February of last year in the construction of a merchant ship? Why have we not proceeded with the building of a ship,


if Lord Bessborough can tell us in another place that the Vulcain is proceeding very satisfactorily?
Does the position not first to test the Vulcain on land still stand, because the whole inference of the Prime Minister's statement last year was that to save time—this was stated outside the House, also—we were not subjecting the Vulcain first to being tested on land? Can the Parliamentary Secretary assure us that the reply to both these questions is that the Vulcain was proceeding satisfactorily in February of last year and that it has proceeded satisfactorily since? If so, why has no progress been made with the construction and the building of the ship itself?
I have other questions to put to the Parliamentary Secretary to which I should like to have replies. I join Lord Alexander in asking the Parliamentary Secretary what are the terms of the contract between the authority and Belgo-Nucleaire? The reason has been given in another place as being that this cannot be disclosed because of commercial considerations. This is a matter in which the public and the taxpayers are entitled to know what are the terms. I wish to remind the Parliamentary Secretary that I have asked him how it came that the authority entered into this association in May, 1962, although the announcement was not made, following the Report of the Working Group, until November of that year.
I also wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary how much the Vulcain will cost. He has a duty to clear up that point. While on one occasion Lord Bessborough appeared forthcoming, later—perhaps on advice—he seemed far less forthcoming when the matter was pursued again. It seems from the debates in another place that the Vulcain will probably cost £4 million. If so, how much will be paid to Belgo-Nucleaire? We are entitled to know. We have to think of the relationship between public authorities and the nuclear energy industry in this country.
There are two further questions which I put to the hon. and gallant Gentleman and which, I think, are equally important. It has been stated in reputable journals that the Vulcain project is considered for use at sea by Euratom and E.N.E.A. and by others and was

turned down. We ought to know about this. I have not seen such statements corrected. Dr. Edlund, the inventor of the spectral shift reactor, not Vulcain, has said that the spectral shift reactor was investigated by Babcock and Wilcox, who decided that it was unsuitable for use at sea and unseaworthy. I wish to know what the Government have done, in the light of that information expressed by people with considerable and successful experience in this field.
There is another matter which we have lost sight of, that when the Minister of Transport told us that we were to concentrate on vigorous research he also told us that we were to seek co-operation in the international field and explore and promote the possibility of a nuclear merchant ship on an international basis. If that was his declared intention, how does it come about now that E.N.E.A. complains that it was the British that killed its project for a £6 million nuclear ship?
Most important of all is the general question that I put to the Parliamentary Secretary. Is it now the fact that, once again, we are back where we started? Is it now the fact that Professor Diamond's panel, as a result of its visit to the United States, feels that we should look for experience beyond the Authority? Is it a fact that we are considering, or ought to be considering, the Babcock and Wilcox project? Is it a fact, or ought it to be a fact, that we are thinking again about the Mitchell Fairfield project?
It is rather more than a year since we had the flamboyant statement by the Prime Minister. We know that there has been no progress since then. More than a year has gone by, but is it worse than that that we are not only not making progress, but are falling back into indecision and uncertainty and do not know what our next step will be? Lord Alexander, I thought, expressed himself very moderately when he said that the whole situation is wholly unsatisfactory. It is wholly unsatisfactory because the Government have never been seized of this problem. They have never tried to institute the proper machinery to promote this development, but have vacillated between varying opinions. The result has been that there has been no action at all.
What is the view of the Government about what they have made their consistent objective, that there should be a prospect of economic success? What do the Government mean by this? How do they translate this effectively into a decision whether to develop or not? I remind the Parliamentary Secretary of what he said in the House two years ago:
I do not say that we could not build a nuclear-propelled ship that would run at a small profit but the return on the capital invested would be less than that with a comparable ship propelled by conventional machinery."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th July, 1962; Vol. 663, c. 1983.]
If, two years ago, he was able to say that we could build a ship which would run at a small profit but comparable with the profit on a conventionally-propelled ship it would be small, I think it scandalous that we have not taken the opportunity to promote a nuclear-propelled ship. If that was the position and we could envisage such a ship running at a small profit, I should have thought that we could have bought the experience not only of running the ship, but, perhaps, equally important, the experience of building it. If that is the position it seems scandalous that over the last few years we have lost ground so heavily to other countries.
That is not only the case in reference to Russia and the United States. We have to recognise that the United States can now afford to await the collation of operational experience with the Savannah because they are so far ahead. As Lord Bessborough said in another place, Germany and Japan have both announced their decision to build nuclear-propelled ships. The Germans have gone far beyond this. In co-operation with Euratom, they are to build a ship at Kiel by G. K.S.S., which will be afloat by 1967. That date is significant because it is the date which was given to us in February last year, when the Prime Minister made his announcement in this House. Not only Germany and Japan have overtaken us, but other shipbuilding countries, such as Holland, Italy and Norway, all appear to be tackling this matter more effectively than we are.
What we need now is a realistic appraisal of the state of research and development on nuclear propulsion for shipping in this country. We have had

these successive phases and successive changes of attitude by the Government. Now, particularly in the light of what has been achieved in other countries, we should have a realistic appraisal. If it be, as seems indicated by the Prime Minister's latest statement about nuclear propulsion, that we are now to look beyond the Atomic Energy Authority, if it he that in the light of such an appraisal we ought to do this, it is also clear that over the past three years there has not been a satisfactory association between the Authority and the nuclear energy industry.
Captain Atkins claimed that the Authority was both judge and plaintiff in this matter. It found in favour of the plaintiff. If it be that it found wrongly, there is all the more case for a reappraisal of the present position and for the certainty that from now on we should take the most expeditious course of development and make a serious effort to catch up with other countries. I would have dealt with the question of Dounreay, but I have not time and I have already spoken for long enough.
The Parliamentary Secretary will be aware of what Lord Alexander said in another place. I have had the opportunity of looking at that. From all I have seen and heard, what Lord Alexander said is confirmed. In the debate their Lordships talked about "equivocation" and "dodging". Those were strong words to be used in another place, but they were absolutely justified in the light of the history of the development of nuclear propulsion over the past few years.
I am not in a position to deal with the technical aspects. I think it a pity that we are not better able to deal with technical aspects. One of the failures of the Government is to provide information comparable to that provided in other countries. I do not for a moment impugn the good faith of the Authority or of the inter-departmental Working Group. On the contrary, I acknowledge the contribution they have made, but they have not been in a position to deal with this matter effectively. The Government have not provided the machinery, nor the will to keep with it as other countries have been able to do. This undeniably has been a major failure of the Government over the past few years.
It is a depressing record of lack of initiative, lack of responsibility, a record of muddle, incompetence, procrastination and delay, failure to face difficulties and to seek a solution. They run away from them and seek some other course of action. In this context, and in the context of the widespread dissatisfaction expressed by almost all those concerned with this problem, I hope that the Government will accede to the request made by Lord Alexander and will institute an inquiry. Until we have an inquiry we cannot be satisfied. This is a course which should be pursued in fairness to those affected in a matter in which we have such a vital national interest. It appears that we are losing out against other countries.
I hope that the Government will not further conceal the information from us, will not further procrastinate and delay, but will accept the challenge which has been made and announce this afternoon that they will institute an inquiry.

4.18 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett): The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) made some play about the optimism of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, and also of myself, about a year ago. Of course, my right hon. Friend is a great enthusiast for getting things done. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If the Opposition think that that is a crime, I am sure that my right hon. Friend would be proud to plead guilty to it.
The hon. Member said at the beginning of his speech that there was no question about the importance of nuclear propulsion to merchant shipping. Unfortunately, there is. The quotation he made from my speech was conditional. Before going further we ought to clear our minds about the precise object of developing nuclear propulsion for merchant vessels. It is not an end in itself, as it was in the case of nuclear submarines.
It would have been quite possible to have built a large ship with nuclear energy as its prime mover several years ago. Unfortunately, such a vessel would not have been economic. By "economic" I do not mean that the

ship would have been unable to operate at a profit. The best of the schemes put forward when we invited tenders in 1960 would have been profitable in certain circumstances. I was glad that the hon. Member made a quotation from an earlier observation of mine on the same subject.
When we talk of the marine reactor being economic we mean more than that. We mean that it must be economic relative to the best conventional machinery of comparable power.

Mr. E. G. Willis: Not immediately.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I did not say immediately.
In attempting to make that comparison a large number of factors have to be considered. Some of these are obvious, and some not so obvious, and perhaps I may be allowed to give some examples. The capital cost of the two sets of machinery has to be compared and so have the fuel costs during the life of the ship. The cost of periodical refuelling is also an important factor in the case of a nuclear ship. Then there is the weight of fuel that must be carried in a conventional ship instead of so much extra cargo.
Similarly, there is the weight and the cost of the shielding and the collision protection in the case of the reactor. The number and the qualifications of the engine-room staff likely to be needed is also relevant as, too, are the probable maintenance costs during the vessel's life. Again, the cost of insurance can be an important factor. Even this list is not exhaustive, because there is also the question of the servicing installations ashore, which already exist for conventional machinery, but which must be provided before nuclear vessels can operate. There is no foreseeable shortage of oil, and we have been advised that there are no grounds for supposing that its price will rise.
I must, therefore, start by emphasising that there is no commercial future for marine reactors unless they are to be cheaper than conventional machinery after taking all the relevant factors into account. It follows from this that there is no point in building a prototype nuclear merchant vessel unless two conditions are satisfied.
First, we must have a reactor that offers a reasonable prospect of leading towards the development of better reactors which will eventually be economical in the sense I have just described. Secondly, we must be satisfied that trial in a sea-going ship is the next stage of development, rather than further research ashore. Contrary to what is so often asserted, we know of no nuclear ships—built, building or projected throughout the world—that fulfil these two conditions.
The American "Savannah" is, one might say, a demonstration ship. According to our advice, her machinery, in its present form, could never be developed into anything economic, and in this respect this vessel may, perhaps, be compared with the earlier "Savannah" which was the first steamship to cross the Atlantic. There is a Russian ice-breaker which has nuclear machinery for reasons that are doubtless fully justified by the nature of her service. We have little information concerning the projected Japanese prototype, but we are unaware of any type of reactor available for ordering now which would be more promising than those already considered by our advisers.
The Germans have just released—on Friday, I think—some details of their prototype which appears to be a good deal more conservative than what we ourselves have in mind.

Mr. John Rankin: In view of what the Parliamentary Secretary has just been saying about the economic aspect, would he not tell us something about the results of the two recent successive reductions in the price of enriched uranium, and the resulting effect on the reactor, which has been reduced from a weight of 1,500 tons to one of 1,000 tons?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my speech I may be able to go some way to answering those questions, but this is a complicated subject and I have given a good deal of thought to what is, perhaps, the best way of developing the argument.
Having said this, I do not wish to give the impression that we are blind to the prize that would come to the first people who could develop an economic marine

reactor. We fully appreciate that. Speaking personally, I have faith that this will one day be achieved. This faith is widely, though not universally, shared, and it is really the reason for the time and money which we have already devoted to this great project.
Let me now turn to the criticisms that have been levelled against the Government, today in the the House by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North and also in the Press. It is said that our decision is over-long delayed; that we are ignoring the claims and expertise of private firms, both in this country and in America; that we have relied too much on the advice of the Atomic Energy Authority, and paid insufficient attention to the warnings of experienced marine engineers.
The last public announcement was made in February of last year—the hon. Gentleman has reminded us of it—at a time when we had just been advised that, if all continued to go well with our research programme, we could hope to take a decision in the autumn of the same year—last year—whether to order a prototype marine reactor for trial in a merchant vessel.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport immediately took a step that was announced at the same time—indeed, it was because he had to take the step that it was necessary for him to make the public announcement. He consulted shipowners and shipbuilders. The attitude of the shipowners was one of profound scepticism whether nuclear propulsion would be competitive in the foreseeable future. It has become clear that shipowners are unlikely to make much financial contribution towards the cost of a prototype nuclear ship until they have definite evidence that an economic marine reactor is likely to be evolved. Unfortunately, as I should like to explain a little later, such a stage is most unlikely to be reached until at least one prototype reactor has been built and evaluated afloat.
The approach of the shipbuilders, as was to be expected, has been more enthusiastic. They, of course, are deeply conscious of the danger to this country's shipyards if a foreign power establishes a commanding lead in the construction of nuclear merchant ships that are economically sound. At the same time,


after a long slump and with prices cut to a level which leaves little or no profit margin, it is scarcely surprising that the industry is in no position to finance a highly speculative venture at heavy and uncertain cost. This being so, it looks, on present form, as though a prototype ship, should it be decided to build one at all, will have to be paid for by the Government.
Sir Thomas Padmore's Working Group on Marine Reactor Research began last summer a review of the technical and economic prospects of a number of reactor designs. The group was assisted by a technical advisory panel under Professor Diamond, of Manchester University, membership of which included men drawn from the A.E.A., Lloyd's Register of Shipping, the Admiralty, the Yarrow Admiralty Research Department, the British Ship Research Association and the marine engineering industry. There was also a Ship Economics Working Party, on which shipowners were strongly represented.
These bodies were faced, for several reasons, with a more complicated problem than had been foreseen. First, at the request of the shipowners, the basis for comparison, which had previously been agreed, was changed. Previous calculations had assumed a higher price for oil fuel than the industry now felt was reasonable. More important, they asked that the comparisons should be made with diesel machinery instead of steam turbines, which had hitherto been regarded as more appropriate in the range of powers to be expected from a marine reactor. Secondly, forecasts of the cost of the fabricated fuel elements, which play an important part in the economics of any reactor, are difficult to obtain, and uncertain.
Thirdly, the claims made by the sponsors of rival reactors—rivals, that is to say, to those integral-type reactors with which we were particularly concerned—could no longer be ignored. These claims, backed by active lobbying and high-pressure salesmanship, led the group to have three American designs and one British design most carefully compared. Perhaps I should say, in passing, that one alternative A.E.A. design—the I.B.R. reactor, referred to by the hon. Member for Sunderland,

North—has been dropped for the time being, because it was found that more scientific research would be needed for that than for the Vulcain design. The reason for dropping it has nothing to do with the criticisms of the design made by Captain Atkins and his friends.

Mr. Willey: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman deal with the point that when the Prime Minister made his statement we were told that the ship would have one of two designs and that there were good reasons for thinking that they were economically feasible and attractive? The hon. and gallant Gentleman is now saying that by the summer of last year the Working Group was looking at other designs and that the I.B.R., one of the two designs on which the Ministry had commented so favourably in February, had been dropped. When were these decisions taken?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: The decision to concentrate on the two integral type designs, the I.B.R. and the Vulcain, was made about the time that the announcement was made, because the Authority and our advisers thought that they were the two best designs. I cannot give the hon. Member, "off the cuff", the exact date on which it was decided to let the I.B.R. drop out for the time being, but the decision was made, as I have said, because it was found that a good deal more scientific research would be needed to give a reasonable prospect of success with this design than had at first been foreseen. The reason why the group went further and investigated the three American designs and the other British designs were, as I have given, that the tremendous volume of lobbying and criticism that went on in the Press and other places made it desirable not only in the opinion of the group, but also of the Atomic Energy Authority, that Professor Diamond and his colleagues should examine these most carefully and compare them. I am sure that the House would agree that that is right.

Mr. Roy Mason: It is important to know when the I.B.R. was dropped. After 13th February, when the Minister emphatically stated that these two systems, the I.B.R. and the Vulcain were to be examined, despite the many designs put forward by private industry and by the Atomic Energy


Authority, after many years we decided on these two for more progressive research. It is absolutely essential that we should know when the I.B.R., one of the two designs, was dropped out.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I am not sure that I would agree that it is quite all that significant, but I am told that the date was September, 1963. In these programmes, the expression "dropped out" which I used is not quite the right one. My experience of these great projects is that some of the contenders tend to fade out in the course of time as discussions proceed, but the rough date is September, 1963.

Mr. Mason: In view of the fact that the hon. and gallant Gentleman disagrees with the expression "dropped out" and insists on "fade out", does this mean that we have dropped research on the I.B.R. and will not spend more public money on the development of the I.B.R. system?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I would prefer not to answer that question. It would be more appropriate for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to do so if he so wishes. We are concerned with work on a big development with an enormous experimental background. Anyone who is familiar with big experimental establishments must be aware that it is never sale to say that all research on a project stops. It is a question of the tempo varying up or down.

Mr. Willey: In the Ministry of Transport's Press statement the Minister said that it was envisaged that the project for a nuclear-propelled ship would embody one of these two types of reactor. I put it in a different way to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. Upon what grounds did his Ministry make that statement?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Because at that time they were considered to be the best two. [An HON. MEMBER: "A risk."] One has to take risks in all these things, but I will come to that point.
There was one final reason which gave the group a slightly bigger task than was foreseen, namely the much-publicised criticism of the whole prin-

ciple underlying integral marine reactors made by Captain Atkins and certain other marine engineers. All this widened the scope of the assessments that had to be made and the final report of the group was not received until the beginning of this month. This report contains only one clear and definite recommendation, namely, that beyond completing our own share of the joint work going forward on the Vulcain project there is little to be said in present circumstances for further research of the sort conducted hitherto.
The practical choice lies between giving up or carrying out a full-scale trial of a prototype nuclear reactor in an ocean-going ship. As between these alternatives we have simply been given a statement of the pros and cons.

Mr. William Small: How much is our share in the building of the second reactor?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I have not mentioned a share in the second reactor at all yet, but I will come to that shortly.
On the other hand, the report of the group contains a great deal of important factual information, parts of which might be held to be commercially confidential. It is for this reason that we have not published it up to now. We hope to publish it shortly substantially in the form in which it was received. Meanwhile, I will summarise a few of its chief points.
The group found that Britain is still well placed to be in the vanguard of progress, despite the vastly greater expenditure by America in this field. If we are to go forward with a trial, the group recommends an integral type reactor of which the Vulcain has at present the most advanced design. At the same time the group was very far from satisfied that any reactor can be developed to compete with conventional machinery. Finally, the group rejected the technical criticisms put forward by certain marine engineers and considered that the integral type of reactor is suitable for marine use.
I should like to say something about the Vulcain project, which so far has gone entirely according to plan, and that is the answer to one of the questions which I was asked a few moments


ago. As the House knows, the Atomic Energy Authority and a Belgian consortium call Belgo-Nucleaire are jointly working on this project. A joint company has been formed to own the results of the joint development programme. The company protects itself by filing patents of the results of the Vulcain work—they are owned on a 50–50 basis—and will be prepared in due course to grant licences to manufacturers in our two countries and elsewhere.
Thus, a position has been reached in which the Vulcain reactor is the only integral reactor at present available on which a significant amount of development has been done. In other words, it is a great deal more than a set of drawings. Furthermore, it is at least as promising as anything we know of that is projected in the foreseeable future. It is the partnership between Britain and Belgium which has enabled us to get as far and as fast. I should like to take the opportunity of paying tribute to the zeal and enthusiasm of our partners. I paid a visit to Belgium four weeks ago today to hear for myself the views of the chairman of Belgo-Nucleaire and the officials and scientists working on the project. As on a previous visit in September, 1962, I found an atmosphere of great confidence.
On the other hand, and we have to face this, there is no assurance that the gap between the best diesels and the Vulcain reactor in its present form can be bridged by further developments on this particular type of reactor. Therefore, the decision which now confronts us is whether an integral reactor of which the Vulcain is the most advanced is sufficiently promising to justify a full-scale trial at sea. This is something which is likely to take six years all-told and to cost several million pounds. It is bound to involve risks. There can be no certainty of success. There is no body of scientists or engineers from whom we could obtain clear and agreed advice on this point. This is the kind of decision which, sooner or later, has to be made in every great research and development project. It is a matter of judgment based upon a background of knowledge of the technical problems involved and coupled, one hopes, with an element of luck.
Not the least of our problems in this case is to arrive at an accurate estimate of what expenditure would be incurred. So far, we have spent less than £4 million, a small sum in relation to what is at stake.

Mr. Rankin: Disgracefully small.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: If the hon. Gentleman imagines that merely by spending more money one gets proportionately more research results, he is profoundly mistaken.

Mr. Ridley: Is it the intention, in working out whether a reactor is competitive or not, to allow some share of the development costs, or is that written off entirely, so to speak, in arriving at the figure for competitiveness?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I think that it is fair to say that we have largely disregarded developments costs. We have always tried to forecast what the cost of the ironmongery, to use that expression, would be when produced on a line of production.
As one goes on, one tries to foresee at what stage it would be reasonable to cut one's losses in the event of failure, how much would have been spent by then and how much might have been gained as a by-product of the work. These things are hard to assess at the best of times, as the Opposition must be well aware from their own experience when they were in office. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Certainly. This is nothing new. I remind the Opposition that, when they embarked on the surface-to-air guided missile programme, they were advised by their expert officials that it would cost less than £10 million. At the end of the day, over £100 million had been spent.
We on this side of the Committee have not reproached them for that. We have never pretended that the disappointments and, perhaps, on occasions, the shortcomings of scientists and engineers are a political matter. I confess that I do not understand the mentality of the Socialist Party in all this. Hon. Members opposite claim that they understand science. They are also the prophets of public enterprise, and, certainly, the days are long past when experiments on this scale are likely to be privately financed. Yet they must, surely, see that


scientific research is not helped by a running fire of questions and criticism. They must realise how ridiculous it is to represent each scientific disappointment and every technical delay as a political miscalculation. Their whole attitude is the strongest possible argument for returning to the days when this kind of project would have been paid for by the wealth of a great captain of industry acting alone, deciding everything alone, and consulting no one.
However, I repeat that those days have passed. We have to take things as we find them. We shall reach and we shall announce a decision as soon as possible. Meanwhile, to those who, in the Press and elsewhere, say that they are so sure that economical marine reactors are already available, I reply in this way. There is nothing to prevent a great shipowner or a consortium of shipowners buying one and giving it a trial. If this were to happen, the Government would be delighted.

4.43 p.m.

Mr. Norman Pentland: I think that the Parliamentary Secretary was unwise to be, at least at this stage, so sensitive to criticism from this side of the Committee. I assure him that he, or the Government, will be criticised by my right hon. and hon. Friends more forthrightly before the debate ends.
I followed the hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech very closely, and I am still confused about certain aspects of this whole affair. I am uncertain why the particular types of reactor were chosen. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) put several questions to the Parliamentary Secretary which he has not attempted to answer, and neither did he attempt to answer the question directly posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason). However, having said that, accept that there is an area of agreement among hon. Members on both sides about this proposal and the problems entailed.
It is recognised by hon. Members on both sides that the prospect of a nuclear-propelled merchant ship would be of tremendous importance for the well-being and prosperity of the shipping industry. No one doubts that. Indeed,

it would give a much needed boost, a shot in the arm, to an industry which, in my view, badly needs such an injection today. It is recognised, also—this has been said both today and many times previously in this Chamber—that our chief competitors abroad recognise the significant economic advantage to be gained from operating nuclear-powered merchant ships.
All of us have agreed from time to time that as Britain is one of the world's foremost maritime nations, we are in duty bound to produce a first generation of nuclear-propelled merchant ships and we are in duty bound also to undertake research and development in this field. I think that, by and large, hon. Members will agree with that assessment of the situation.
I come now to an area in which, I am sure, there will be disagreement, perhaps violent disagreement, between us. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North pointed out, when we try to assess the part which the Government have played in this affair over the past 12 months, we find that theirs has been a record of vacillation and contradiction all along the line. We have had no real information at all from the appropriate Ministers, and, on the basis of the skimpy information which we have to hand, probably everything that can be said to advance the argument for a nuclear-propelled merchant ship has been said over and over again in this Chamber during the past year or two.
It has been said in another place by noble Lords. As my hon. Friend said, noble Lords who sit on the Opposition benches in another place have tried vigorously in recent weeks to elicit information from the Government in order to find out exactly what was happening. They met with no more success than we have had in recent months.
All along the line, in every aspect of atomic energy policy, the Government have been extremely reluctant to give any worth-while information. Whether on the whole issue of the atomic energy industry or on the various aspects of it which have arisen, there has been a blank wall of refusal when we have asked for direct information. In other words, the Government have wrapped up all the important problems facing the


industry in a parcel of mystery and secrecy. No matter how we have tried to break through, we have never been able to penetrate the mystery and secrecy surrounding these issues.

Mr. Ridley: My hon. and gallant Friend has just told us that he is to publish the bulk of the Padmore Report. That criticism which the hon. Gentleman had already prepared in his notes is no longer valid.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: But we have not had it.

Mr. Pentland: That is the obvious answer, that we have not had it yet. This is our complaint. We are still not aware of what has actually taken place.
I have watched with interest the efforts of hon. Members opposite over recent months to get some real information on the matter. I am thinking, in particular, of the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby), the hon. and gallant Member for Harrow, East (Commander Courtney) and the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward). They are three hon. Members, in particular, who have pressed vigorously for information from the Government, seeking to find out, by their pointed and forthright questions, what has been taking place in regard to nuclear-propelled merchant ships. I have no doubt that, if they have the opportunity to speak today, they will confirm what I have just said. They must be disappointed and disgruntled at the results of their efforts so far.
To emphasise my argument about the lack of information on atomic energy affairs, I mention, in passing, the White Paper on the Second Nuclear Power Programme. Here we have a report on the Powell Committee's findings on the technical, economic and other considerations involved in this country's future nuclear power programme. I should be out of order if I enlarged on that Report, but it is totally inadequate in providing the information necessary for hon. Members to understand how our future nuclear power programme will develop.
All hon. Members are aware of the conflict of interest raging inside the atomic energy industry both in marine nuclear

propulsion and in nuclear power endeavour. Yet hon. Members have to try to ascertain the true facts of what is taking place through sources outside this Chamber because we cannot get the real facts from Ministers inside the Chamber. I hold the view that it is shocking and dangerous that the Government have for so long deprived hon. Members of any worth-while information on the many serious issues involved in our atomic energy industry.
I say that for this reason. Hon. Members are aware that in the final analysis, in order to overcome the serious conflicts which bedevil our atomic energy industry, a political decision will have to be taken by the House of Commons. I therefore hope that, despite what the Parliamentary Secretary said today, we shall have more information from now on about these very serious problems. Most hon. Members are still completely in the dark about what is happening.

Mr. Rankin: So are the Government.

Mr. Pentland: I return to the specific question before the Committee. I was interested in a leading article which I read in The Times of 18th March this year, under the heading "Nuclear Merchant Ship". The theme of this article was to advise the Government not to be too hasty in reaching a decision on this matter and not to pay too much attention to the Opposition's oft-repeated request for a nuclear-powered ship, claiming that the Opposition were continually impressing on the Government the argument that Britain was falling behind in the race for an economic, or a potentially economic, nuclear ship.
That may or may not be fair comment—it depends on how one looks at these matters—but what amazed me most of all was the very last sentence in the article, which said:
What is dear is that the sense of urgency with which the Opposition have invested the affair is quite artificial.
The Times has not lived up to its reputation. Its leader writers have not been so meticulous in their research into what has been taking place on this very important matter.
It is true that we on this side have been pressing the Government for a long time to declare their intentions on a nuclear-powered ship, but it was the


Government alone, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North pointed out, who first introduced a sense of urgency into this matter. Therefore, let us look at some of the facts.
In reply to a Question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) as long ago as 5th December, 1962, the Minister of Transport said:
Although the research programme is going well, the stage has not yet been reached of deciding whether to have a prototype nuclear ship built."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th December, 1962; Vol. 668, c. 180.]
Ten weeks later we had the first optimistic statement by the Government. This has been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North, and by myself on previous occasions in this Chamber.
I wish to refer to the speech made by the previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan), when he was opening the debate on the European Economic Community negotiations on 11th February, 1963. He said:
The House has taken much interest in the prospect of a nuclear merchant ship. We have always been anxious, not merely to build a nuclear engine which could propel a ship—that, of course, can easily be done—but the Atomic Energy Authority and its experts have been concentrating on how to get a nuclear reactor which is economically attractive. We are now getting very near to this point"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th February, 1963; Vol. 671, c. 953.]
I ask hon. Members to mark the last sentence:
We are now getting very near to this point".
As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North said, there was plenty of optimism then, but a sense of urgency was also injected into the debate because the previous Prime Minister, in his speech, was dealing with Britain's economic prospects. In my view, the impression which he tried to create was that we were then on the threshold of building marine nuclear-propelled ships. That is the impression which the country got. Every shipyard in this country was alerted to the fact that very soon they would be building nuclear-powered merchant ships. This is the disgraceful thing.
I claim that the Government themselves were the first to introduce a note of urgency into this matter. Numerous

Questions have been asked since 11th February, 1963. I could quote all night the Questions which have been put to the Minister of Transport, the former Parliamentary Secretary for Science, the Minister for Science himself and the Prime Minister since that time by hon. Members on both sides, because we were all anxious to know exactly when a final decision would be reached.
We were given a promise on 30th July, 1963, by the former Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry for Science, the hon. Member for. Basingstoke (Mr. Denzil Freeth). If my memory serves me aright, he was replying to the hon. Member for Dorset, West. During his reply he said that there would be a decision in the autumn on whether definitely to build a ship and which reactor to put in it. A definite statement was made and a categoric assurance given by the then Parliamentary Secretary.
I am not saying that he said this "off the cuff". He was definitely advised by the Government to make this reply. The autumn of 1963 has come and gone, and we are still in extreme doubt about the whole affair. It was, however, obvious to us that long before 1963 the Government were clamping clown on any real information. I am sure that Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries were advised to give non-committal replies to Questions.
I could go on, but many hon. Members want to speak and I close therefore by saying this. In my view, the Government stand condemned not only for the manner in which they have handled the problem of a marine nuclear-powered merchant ship, but on their whole approach to the many problems facing our atomic energy industry. It is well known to every hon. Member and to the country that as a result of the dithering and indecision on the part of the Government over the past two years on atomic energy affairs the many thousands of workers engaged in the atomic energy industry are working with a feeling of anxiety, insecurity and unrest. For that stare of affairs the Government must accept their full share of responsibility.

5.0 p.m.

Dame Irene Ward: I should like to congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary


Secretary on the speech that he made this afternoon. He "came clean" and gave us a great deal of very valuable information. If some of his clear statements had been made earlier we might, perhaps, have felt a little happier about this whole position.
As an amateur, I have tried over a long period to take an interest in the problem of nuclear power for marine propulsion. I have arrived at some definite conclusions, which are not technical, but which, I hope, are at least common sense. The shipowners have to look to the prosperity of their industry, and, as my hon. and gallant Friend pointed out, they depend on conventional propulsion. Until they have something better offered to them, they are quite right to stand by conventional propulsion. But that means that the shipowners were not pressing Her Majesty's Government. The shipbuilders, presumably, were taking some action, but not very vigorously.
Casting my mind back to the original discussions and the exhibition that was held of nuclear reactors some years ago, I have always suspected that the Admiralty, which appeared to me to be very interested at the time, fell away, partly because it did not think that its techniques were threatened by any other country. We have got used to that kind of appreciation in the Service Departments and it is very right that it should be so.
Then the United States of America produced the "Savannah", and from its production its economic problems have become known through our Atomic Energy Authority and Ministry of Transport. We have far too many Departments mixed up in this whole matter. I should like to have seen a proper coordinated policy on this, so that we did not have to go from one Department to another, and one Department playing off another Department. I think that the whole conception has been extremely difficult, but I am fairly certain that the economic difficulties into which the "Savannah" ran had an effect on the allocation of money from the Treasury to the Atomic Energy Authority and that section of the Ministry of Transport which was concerned with nuclear propulsion. I believe that the whole

emphasis shifted from excitement to a rather dull pedestrian approach, and that is why the whole matter has taken so long to arrive at its present position.
Of course, Her Majesty's Government are very well aware that there are not a great many Members in the House who have any technical knowledge of these new interests and developments. But I believe that when the break-through comes, this country ought to be in a position to lead the world. That is my objective in interesting myself in this whole matter. I do not want us to fall behind, because I feel that when the break-through comes it will be a new interest for this country and that we can carry out this project better than any other.
I should be very grateful, when the Secretary of State winds up the debate, if he would give me a specific answer to a question which puzzles me. I accept the whole of the argument that has been put forward by my hon. and gallant Friend, but I find it very extraordinary that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) should have made the speech, which has been referred to by several hon. Members, on 11th February, 1963. Who advised my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley? It is not usual for a Prime Minister to come forward with a statement of that kind unless it has been provided from the appropriate Department.
I think that the Secretary of State would be well advised to clear up how it was that this information was given to my right hon. Friend, because, of course, good Conservatives took a lead from the statement of my right hon. Friend. I have always suspected that there has been weakness somewhere within the scientific organisation and that someone led my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley astray. I should like to know who it was.
The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Pentland) quoted from the speech that my right hon. Friend made that day. I want to quote something more because I want to know about this. He ended what he was saying on 11th February in these words:
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport will very soon be discussing with all those concerned the arrangements for


the construction, ownership, and operation of such a vessel."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th February, 1963; Vol. 671, c. 953.]
I want to know what has happened about that. I want to know whether we have a plan, whether we have decided who is to build the ship, and who will pay for it. I want to know all about it and whether the plan is completely ready following on those discussions, which, after all, took place quite a long time ago.
I want to know when the decision about this reactor which is the subject of recommendations from the Padmore working party will be taken, because many of us feel that the only way to test out the future of nuclear propulsion is to have a reactor installed in a ship at sea. I should be grateful to know specifically in clear terms—that is to say, in the kind of way that my hon. and gallant Friend spoke this afternoon—whether a decision is to be taken to make progress, and when we have a decision whether Her Majesty's Government will pay for the ship, and what progress will be made.
When the Admiralty was in charge of the the technical committee at the time of the exhibition, I remember the argument that I had at that time when Her Majesty's Government—I am not blaming them for it, because it is always important to get other people to pay for one's projects if one can—were arguing that the shipowners and shipbuilders ought to bear part of the cost. I think that has all gone by the board, or at least that is what it seems to me. This has to be a project taken on by Her Majesty's Government.
If we have spent all this money on research, and have now arrived at a reasonable conclusion, the Government should make the position clear that if we are to make progress in this matter, they will build a ship and take full responsibility for the expense. Nobody has said that. I should like to hear it said. That would fulfil the rather excited statement of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley, who, I think, saw this whole project in the same exciting life as a great many of us have seen it for a considerable time.
I do not want to enter into the controversy of Captain Atkins. I supported him because in a free country everybody

has a right to be allowed to criticise the Government. Although I am devoted to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State—I cannot remember whether he is now science, education, or what he is called; but whatever his title, I dislike seeing those people torn to pieces, because it takes courage to come out on one's own and criticise the Establishment and the powers that be.
I should like to say this about Vickers. I happen to know the company very well, because Vickers have a great shipbuilding yard on the Tyne. When all this controversy arose, I wrote both to the chairman of the company and to the managing director and asked them to come and have a drink with me, which they did. I then told them in no uncertain terms what I thought of their treatment of Captain Atkins. I must say that they behaved perfectly and were very nice. I expect that they were furious internally, but I am quite used to that, because that is what the Government often are with me. They took it really well.
One of the reasons why I am a Conservative is that it is deplorable that any great firm or individuals feel that they cannot either criticise or take action against the Government in case the result is that they do not obtain necessary orders. I felt over the Captain Atkins affair that Vickers were terrified of their relations with the Atomic Energy Authority and future work which might go out to them. That is very regrettable.
I admire Captain Atkins. He may not have been right, but, like anybody in the country, he has a right to express an opinion. A great many marine engineers of great distinction supported the view which he put forward. When Captain Atkins appeared on television, it was regrettable that the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Authority was not prepared, I understand, to put up anybody on television to argue against Captain Atkins. That is not a very good thing. We should always hear both sides. If somebody does not have a good case, that is too bad, but if one has a good case, which is what is put forward by the powers that be, at least somebody should appear on television and state it.
That whole episode was not very good for what I call human relationships. I hope that in future, when people speak


out genuinely and with no particular axe to grind, their views will be held in respect.

Mr. Hogg: I should like, first, to express my gratitude to my hon. Friend for her expression of devotion to myself, which I reciprocate. If my hon. Friend will forgive my saying so, what Captain Atkins did was to make a quite inexcusable charge against Sir Roger Makins personally. Although everybody may have a right to criticise either the Government or the policy of a public authority, a personal charge of that kind ought either to have been substantiated or withdrawn. I felt that I should be doing less than my duty as the person in Parliament responsible for Sir Roger Makins, who could not have answered for himself, if I did not repudiate it in rather strong terms.

Dame Irene Ward: I do not disagree with that; that is very fair.
At the same time, I should have preferred my right hon. and learned Friend to have expressed also his view about the line taken by Vickers. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I still think that having expressed his views in that way, my right hon. and learned Friend might have taken a little more time and trouble to deal with the legitimate criticisms that Captain Atkins made. He got so excited about this allegation that the other side of Captain Atkins' contribution went by default, and I did not like that. Now that we have got the air cleared, it may be a good thing.
I want a clear statement to be made about what the future will be. Needless to say, I hope that we shall ask for tenders for this 65,000-ton tanker. Nobody will disagree with me when I say that it is well worth bearing in mind that in this new "know-how", we do not want all the experience to be concentrated on one side of the country. Barrow-in-Furness, being a magnificent place for building submarines, has a lot of "know-how" on nuclear propulsion for submarines. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will see that the "know-how" is spread. I cannot think of any better part of the world for it to be spread than the North-East Coast. I am delighted to put that on record.
My final comment concerns the extraordinary attitude in this matter of the Minister of Defence. Whenever anybody asked whether we could have a nuclear reactor in a naval replenishment vessel, which would have given us the experimental aspect of nuclear propulsion at, perhaps, much less cost than building a 65,000-ton tanker, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence would not "come clean" and never answered the question. I know nothing about the technical side of naval affairs, but it seemed to me extraordinary that with all the arguments that were going on about these reactors and about which one would have the best possibility of economic result, the Minister of Defence should at the same time decide on reactors for submarines.
Only the other day, he told me that our next three submarines to be built would have British reactors. I know that the circumstances of operating a submarine are quite different from a merchant ship—I know all that side of it—but I should be very glad to know what type of reactor has been decided upon by the Admiralty as being the most effective for use in our British-reactored nuclear submarines.
A great deal of the difficulty of this whole matter has been that everything has been divided between so many Government Departments. We started with the Admiralty. I should have been quite pleased to have had the technical development inside the Admiralty with the assistance of the people who were concerned with nuclear marine propulsion. First, however, we had an Admiralty technical committee, of which the Civil Lord of the Admiralty was chairman. That was all mushed up and we got into the Ministry of Transport. I was not particularly pleased about that, because the Minister of Transport has quite enough to do with the big jobs which he has on hand and I am not keen on mixing up shipping and shipbuilding with the Ministry of Transport. We could have done a great deal better had we had a co-ordinated Department.
I have nothing further to say except that I hope that the questions which I have addressed to my right hon. and learned Friend will be answered clearly and conclusively. I want to know who


advised my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and on what ground he was advised to make his statement. I also want to know whether, arising out of the conversations which took place in February, 1963, we have concluded an arrangement about the building of the ship provided that we have decided on the nuclear reactor which, I gather, has the recommendation of the Padmore Working Party of being the most economic.
I want to know whether we have made arrangements for the ship, for the Treasury to pay and how long we shall probably have to wait after the Report is published before we have the decision. I certainly hope that we have everything buttoned up before the General Election, because it would give my friends on the North-East Coast a great deal of pleasure to be able to say what the Government have achieved to help us to be a leading Power in nuclear propulsion in the years to come.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. Roy Mason: I am surprised that the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), who said that she was satisfied with the Minister's speech and thought that he was frank and forthright, should then have proceeded to ask him a series of questions which she has posed in the House many times before in order to extract from him information which she has always required. I did not find that the Minister gave us any new information at all. His speech was just a long apologetic list of figures, comparisons and reasons why we had not yet decided upon the nuclear marine reactor which we really wanted for nuclear shipping. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) seemed to be more with it than the hon. Gentleman, and particularly The Times, when he stated that shipping was going nuclear sooner than we thought. My hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Pentland) quoted from The Times editorial of 18th March, which dealt specifically with this subject and advised the Government to take their time The Times ought to be informed that naval-wise shipping really has gone nuclear.
Eleven years ago the Americans were trying out their prototype

for their nuclear submarines. They have now dozens of nuclear submarines, one merchant nuclear vessel and three or four nuclear military vessels. The Russians have numerous nuclear submarines and one nuclear ice breaker. We have one nuclear submarine and one on the stocks, and many more will follow. Undoubtedly in a few years' time we shall have nuclear surface ships, both military and merchant.
Japan, Italy, Germany, France and Norway are all taking an active interest. Consortia are being formed and Government subsidies have been received. Germany anal Japan, particularly, are taking very active steps to get one on the sea much quicker than we are planning to do. I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street said and contradict The Times editorial, which also said:
There may or may not be a nuclear age at sea. At present it is impossible to say.
I say that the nuclear age at sea is already upon us. How backward and Conservative can The Times be? In my opinion, it is this type of ostrich-like Conservatism that has stifled progress in nuclear marine propulsion in Britain so far.
Let us look at the facts at home, because they add up to this, that it has been a tragic history of indecision and vacillation by the Government and there has been a disgraceful series of frustrations that has had to be borne by British industry as a result thereof. Evaluations on possible ship reactor designs began as far back as 1956 or 1957. The Galbraith Committee was formed and the Atomic Energy Authority put forward its ideas. Companies within the nuclear power consortia and other firms, too, submitted designs. By May 1959 nine designs had been submitted. A special exhibition of models was held in Whitehall. The hon. and gallant Member for Harrow, East (Commander Courtney) referred to this in the past. This was e exciting to industry. We thought that we were on the verge of designs and were going ahead with the project.
In 1960, however, at the invitation of the Ministry of Transport, five companies, after a great deal of thought and effort, were asked to send in tenders


and designs of two possible types of marine reactors. After being pigeonholed for 18 months, all these designs were turned down, mainly because, as the Minister stated, they showed little promise of ever becoming competitive. All the companies were bitterly disappointed, and they strongly resented the way the Minister had handled the matter. Design teams had been built up and during this frustrating waiting period they had all been held together. A fight ensued between the companies and the Ministry for compensation, and only in 1963, in the Supplementary Estimates, was it agreed that £250,000 should be granted to these five companies—£50,000 each—for the work they had done.

Mr. Ridley: Would the hon. Gentleman say that any of these designs should have been built? This is the only point he has got where he can conceivably differ from my right hon. Friend. Does he feel that on these tenders, which were clearly uncompetitive and incapable of further development, the Government should have started building the ships?

Mr. Mason: The hon. Gentleman keeps poking his nose in. He did exactly the same to my hon. Friend on the same question. If he will wait until the argument is posed he will see that it is specially being deployed to show that on every occasion that British industry, the nuclear power consortia or private companies have intervened they have been pushed back and badly dealt with by the Government and that the A.E.A. alone has come to the fore.
These five companies, having brought together their design teams and having spent some time in submitting their designs, and all of them having been turned down, were paid £50,000 each for all their trouble and for holding the design teams together for all that time. That, in my opinion, was unworthy of the Government and is, indeed, a typical example of how this Government have so often let down this new generation of scientists, technologists and engineers, and, in particular, design teams.
It is all right the hon. Gentleman opposite shaking his head. If he knows enough about the subject I hope that he will intervene and support me. Is

it not true that in the case of missile aircraft Blue Streak and Blue Water millions of pounds were spent on them and that design teams were scattered in the end? Millions of pounds of public money were wasted. This is also an occasion where the Government exploited British industrialists' designs and tenders and then turned them all down and later decided to spend public money with the Atomic Energy Authority.
After this the Galbraith Committee, which had been specially set up to recommend to the Minister of Transport the types of marine reactors that should be encouraged for marine propulsion, suggested two special types—a boiling water reactor and an organic moderated reactor.
These five companies submitted designs for these two types of reactors as suggested by the Minister. Of course, having done that, the projects were turned down. The Galbraith Committee, having done its job, naturally had now died. In November, 1961, the Government decided to set up a working group on marine reactor research which had to report to both the Minister of Science and the Minister of Transport. The group was given £3 million of public money and asked to search for an "economically promising design". Bringing in the British Shipbuilding Research Association and the Atomic Energy Authority under the chairmanship of Sir James Dunnett, they were now described as a joint project team. Not long after they had been set up they formed another committee, the Technical Advisory Panel, under the leadership of Professor Diamond. Between them, they went through the whole procedure again, and, in the end, examined five reactors. One was the Vulcain, a joint effort by Belgium and Britain, an Atomic Energy Authority reactor; the second was the integral boiling reactor, another Atomic Energy Authority reactor. There were three designs coming in from industry, from Mitchell's, Vickers, and Babcock's. Recommendations were made then to the Minister by the Working Group under the new chairmanship of Sir Thomas Padmore.
I think that throughout all this it is essential to remember that on 6th May, 1962, an agreement had been made


between the Atomic Energy Authority and its equivalent in Belgium that they were going jointly to develop this Vulcain reactor. Then, on 11th February, 1963, the Minister of Transport announced that the Vulcain and the I.B.R., both A.E.A. reactor designs, were the most promising. By this time, I am led to believe, the expenditure had risen to nearly £5 million on research by the working group, and so it is right for us to ask what has happened since February, 1963.
Because the Committee must know that on every occasion the consortia of nuclear energy groups and other interested companies have many times been asked for designs, tenders, information, exhibition of models, and so on, and on no occasion—not once—have they met with success, and even after all that co-operation those five companies to which I earlier referred had to fight for some financial recognition from the Government, in spite of the work they did and the designs they submitted.
This is a disgraceful history and, what is more perturbing, it is a suspicious one. It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman laughing in his cynical fashion, but I want to consider seriously the history of what has happened. Shortly after the Minister of Transport made his statement, Mr. Kinsey, head of marine propulsion of the Atomic Energy Authority and a member of the Technical Advisory Panel, a week after the announcement by the Minister, said:
If the research programmes continues to progress favourably Reactor and ship specifications can be prepared and construction of reactors started in the autumn, 1963.
He also said:
Ship specifications are to be decided finally by the end of 1963.
He was specifically referring to Vulcain and the I.B.R. What the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth is so pleased about I do not know, because she was thanking the Minister for what he had said.

Dame Irene Ward: That was honest.

Mr. Mason: Nothing was revealed today apart from the fact that officially I.B.R. has been dropped. So there is another one out of the race, and we still have no idea of the potential of Vulcain.
Has the decision been taken? Is it to be in weeks or months? Or is it that it may be imminent? It may be that now they dare not reveal it because of the imminence of a General Election. The statement, which the hon. Lady was anxiously a waiting, that we can go ahead and build a ship which will be responsible for a break-through in nuclear marine propulsion, may be contrary to what she expects.
We do not know yet. We know one has been dropped out, and Vulcain remains. I.B.R. went out in September, exactly at the same time that the head of marine propulsion of the Atomic Energy Authority said that the decisions were going to be taken. If a decision has been taken about that reactor, that design, has it not been taken about Vulcain? Why should we not know? Why should this Committee not be informed? For the hon. and gallant Gentleman to come to that Box and just let us know that like an old soldier I.B.R. faded away is not good enough. Is not the Committee aware that we are spending public money on this research? If the I.B.R. has been dropped, it has been dropped, and no more money should be spent on it, and the Minister should be frank in telling the Committee, and, if it is continuing, let us know, and know what the expenditure, is, and why. We also want to know the future of Vulcain.
I address my remarks to the Secretary of State for Education and Science. We have had the Atomic Energy Authority for 10 years and ten or eleven Reports have been submitted to the House, but we have not had one debate on atomic energy in the House. Therefore, it is right that we should ask these questions now and that we should get authorised replies.
We also know that following that statement by the Minister of Transport in February there was a violent disagreement between a man of no mean experience in marine engineering, Captain Atkins, and the Atomic. Energy Authority What happened, I do not have to go into, but there was an embarrassing disagreement, and the Minister for Science was touched by it and jumped to his seat in another place and replied and brought on a personal slanging match. However, there was a disagreement, which cannot be


denied, and it came from a man of authority.
I think we ought to know a little more why it is that every submission by British industry in the nuclear consortia has been dropped—every design. We also ought to know this. The Atomic Energy Authority has been receiving lots of information from these private industries and consortia—ideas and designs and information. To what extent has it used it? To what extent has there been pinching of information going on of materials, designs, technique, research, which may have been done by private industry and has gone to the Atomic Energy Authority?
When are we going to get the final recommendations of the Padmore Committee?

Mr. Hogg: Before we pass on to that, I think that if the hon. Gentleman is going to make allegations against the good faith of the Atomic Energy Authority he should either substantiate them or at least say exactly what allegation he is making, or else not make it. As I understood him—I may be wrong, and I hope I am wrong—he was suggesting that the Authority had—I think he used the word—pinched confidential commercial information from firms without compensation. If that allegation is to be made, I should like to know exactly what it is in order that I may refute it.

Mr. Mason: Without going into all the specific terminology used in every nuclear journal, special journals—Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Engineering, and so on—in the last few months I would point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that from there he may see that these companies are really upset about this. The theme running all through is that there is growing suspicion—the right hon. and learned Gentleman can look for himself—that although they have freely provided to Ministerial Departments, the Minister of Transport, the Admiralty, possibly the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself now that there is joint responsibility—because we have made away with the Admiralty—and the Atomic Energy Authority, and although they have done a lot of work, and submitted a lot of information, they have got little return. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman

looks through these papers he will find out that there is the question of royalties running through it. If they had submitted it, and it had been recognised by the Authority, royalties would have been written in. Are they going to get royalties for information they have submitted? I take it no further than that, but this is plainly there.

Mr. Hogg: I ask the hon. Gentleman specifically whether he is making a charge or not, and if he is making a charge what that charge is.

Mr. Rankin: Why does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman listen?

Mr. Mason: I have just told the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I cannot go any further than I have.

Mr. Rankin: This is only a short debate.

Mr. Mason: There is no need for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to be so touchy about the subject. He will have time to reply. All I am telling him is that many of the companies which have submitted information and designs are themselves saying this, and if he reads all this matter he will find that out. There is this suspicion, and it should be cleared up once and for all.

Mr. Hogg: As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman is content to make an innuendo without substantiating it by a charge. I must tell him that I consider this a disreputable thing to do.

Mr. Mason: The right hon. and learned Member always has a nettle in his bottom and wants to jump to his feet in touchy fashion. He brought even the Captain Atkins affair down to a disgraceful scraping of the barrel in answering.
The trouble is that the Government have caught themselves in the cleft stick of indecision. They have dallied too long to be in with the forerunners and gain some operating experience. Now they want to catch up with an economically operational nuclear ship, but we have not a nuclear unit that will satisfy the tests.
The first such ship will not be economic no matter what the Government decide, and we will not be able to launch one before 1968 or 1969. We


shall be several years behind the Russians and the Americans on all the other factors governing marine nuclear propulsion. This should have been done as an interim measure, as Russia and the United States did it and as Germany has done it by putting a ship on the stocks. Nor will the Japanese be caught napping. The Japanese have decided to go ahead and build a nuclear ship as well. If we had gone forward with an interim project—and we could have done it based on some of the 1960 designs put forward by industrialists at the request of the Government—we could have had a ship launched this year, a floating laboratory that would have been operational as well.
The whole history of the Government's efforts to develop a satisfactory nuclear marine unit, with the abysmal failure to get an operational vessel at sea, has been riddled with vaccilation and indecision. British industry—the nuclear consortia and the other industrialists involved—feel that they have been let down. Then there are the articles in Nuclear Engineering and Nuclear Energy, which reflect the suspicion that they are being fobbed off in preference to the A.E.A. Public money amounting to £5 million is being spent by a working group on nuclear research in which three Ministers and the A.E.A. are also involved.
Because of all these factors, this matter should be referred to the Public Accounts Committee for an inquiry. Indeed, in view of what has been happening and of the little information this House has been given, a committee of inquiry is called for.

5.44 p.m.

Commander Anthony Courtney: Hearing the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), I have the feeling that he listens to few speeches other than his own. I paid close attention to the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, and I felt that it was, contrary to so many speeches in this Committee, as full of information as an egg is of meat. Indeed, one of the troubles about these debates is that we have had very little information to go on. We have constantly needed from a Minister the sort of information we have been gven today, which is complete but needs time to digest. Unfor-

tunately, we have not that time in trying to contribute to the debate.
This is a question of the greatest national importance to a maritime nation like Britain. I do not propose to enter into the political considerations brought up by hon. Members opposite. I shall confine myself to the future and to how best we car take advantage of the favourable situation in which our nation is slightly ahead of our competitors, as my hon. and, gallant Friend has reason to assume is the case. There are immense economic benefits awaiting the nation first at sea with an economic nuclear-powered merchant ship, and I do not intend to enter into the details of capital costs, depreciation, and all these other considerations which come into this very complex problem. I suggest, however, that we broaden the outlook slightly in order to take in two naval aspects of marine nuclear propulsion which also have a contribution to make to the general solution of the problem.
First, there is the submarine reactor. This has a ready been developed by the Americans. Secondly, there is the surface ship reactor. We have so far dealt almost exclusively with the problem of an economic reactor for merchant ships. Surely there is a connection between the requirements for a naval surface ship and a fast, nuclear-powered cargo liner. I believe that these nuclear considerations may be approaching one another and that we are perhaps losing by separating the purely Admiralty interests from the purely commercial ones. As has been said on both sides of the House today, I believe that we should get back more closely to the naval aspects than we have been recently.
We have, of course, the Japanese warning, to which a number of hon. Members have drawn attention. Not only are the Japanese ahead of us in the design of large tankers and in building capacity but they may be well ahead of us, if we do not watch out, in every aspect of shipping and shipbuilding, unless we can achieve the type of technical breakthrough represented by this possibility. As we have heard, it remains a possibility and what one might describe as a "good bet" on which this country should take a chance, and it is to that question that we should be addressing ourselves today.
We need answers to two specific problems, and have received one of them today. First, is there a reactor available to us which shows the promise of eventually being competitive economically with the conventional system of propulsion, taking into account all the immense design and cargo-carrying advantages resulting from the elimination of the bulk carrying of fuel supplies? All these considerations are the subject of the calculations which it is not our business to discuss in great detail today because we have not the detailed information available.
Secondly, have we arrived at a point when we must apply the technical lessons we have learnt, where we must develop the technical advantages which we believe we have gained, by sending this prototype reactor to sea? The second question is the all-important one facing us. We have already had an assurance about the first question, for we have been told that one reactor, the Vulcain, which shows definite promise, and has a chance of giving us what we require for the development of this unique system of propulsion. On the second question, there are many important considerations which we are justified in discussing today. Doubts have been thrown on the integral principle. The Padmore Committee and the Diamond Technical Panel have stated quite categorically—and we know that it is new information—that the integral principle is considered to be perfectly practicable in sea-going ships.
We have the problem of the weight of the reactor vessel and the stability which that represents in a prototype merchant ship fitted with a reactor. We have the problem of collision protection. We have the problem of the training of engineer officers to a new type of spectral shift moderation of this reactor. As hon. Members probably know, spectral shift consists of mixing two types of water, which may prove quite impracticable when the reactor is taken to sea. This is one of the vitally important reasons why we must—to use an expression which my hon. and gallant Friend does not like—get our feet wet and take this reactor afloat.
We still lead—another important point which has emerged in the debate—but

others are undoubtedly close on our heels, others such as the Germans—and again the information has just been given to us—who, with a more conservative type of reactor than we are developing have decided to get their feet wet. They have laid down the keel of a ship. It is no new thing, as many of us know from before the war, that surprisingly little information about the Japanese construction problems is available. Who are we to say that we know precisely what the Japanese are doing in this respect and whether our supposed lead is real? That makes the urgency of the matter all the greater.
We have to decide what speed of ship, what class of ship and what size of ship we should construct. Again referring to the Admiralty, we must consider two factors. First, the Admiralty is already geared to a nuclear type of thinking and assuredly could make some contribution to the solution of this common problem. Secondly, the operation of this ship must require in the national interest a form of strict correlation of effort among the Atomic Energy Authority, the Ministry of Transport, the Admiralty and private enterprise, by which I mean the ship owners and the shipbuilders.
We should have one cautionary thought. It is that in the parallel event of 130 or more years ago, in the changeover from sail to steam, those who opposed the introduction of the new method of propulsion were the ship owners themselves. Without going into too much detail, we should always carry that thought at the back of our minds.
The object of such a prototype ship would be to obtain the maximum experience in typical merchant ship operating conditions with the optimum type of merchant ship selected for the purpose. This is something which cannot be left entirely to competitive private enterprise. I will not develop all the arguments in support of this view, but I believe that a solution to the problem is for the Ministry of Science and the Ministry of Transport to delegate responsibility for the operation of the ship to the Admiralty Board of the Ministry of Defence. The ship itself might usefully be some type of naval auxiliary manned by a mixed scientific, Ministry of Transport, merchant


and naval crew operating under the administration of the Admiralty Board and under the direction of the Padmore Committee and probably also of the Diamond Technical Panel. A type of naval replenishment tanker would be the lowest common denominator for all the operating requirements and interests which are represented, in an effort to produce the best answer to this vitally important problem.
Finally, there comes the 64,000 dollar question of who is to pay. If this project is technically feasible and the financial risk is worth taking, it must not be held back by the reluctance of any individual Department to foot its share of the bill. It is here that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in his capacity as First Lord of the Treasury, should say yea or nay, this is to be, this is not to be, regardless of individual financial considerations.
I am sure that the Committee will agree that we are undergoing a long period of malaise in British maritime affairs which goes far wider than the decline of our shipbuilding and shipping interests and this is due to causes to which I have drawn attention in other debates. This possibility—it is no more—of nuclear marine propulsion can put an entirely different face on our maritime development which we shall neglect at our peril. I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to give the greatest consideration to this decision. Perhaps the time is upon us. We in this Committee now know more than we did a couple of hours ago. I believe that the chance is worth taking and I ask that it should be taken and taken now.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Harrow, East (Commander Courtney), in what he said at the end of his speech. If we are discussing money in this Committee—and I believe that we are—it is worth taking a look at some of the things which the Financial Times, the bible of the Conservative Party, tells us. On 4th March it had an article called,
Time for decision on nuclear ships".
I have read many of these articles over the years since 1958. This article ended with these words:
One thing is, however, certain and that is the need for decision… If there is much delay, the financial loss will be incalculable.

In this Session of Parliament we have passed the Shipbuilding (Credit) Bill by which the Treasury is to provide £70 million—I do not know whether it will get it all pack in time—for the wellbeing of the shipbuilding industry and to keep Britain's place among the world's shipbuilding industries. Today, the Parliamentary Secretary has told us that the cost of a nuclear ship would be several million pounds. The Financial Times said that if we did not get into this matter quickly, did not get our feet wet, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman put it, we as a nation would lose a great deal of money.
I have never understood why the Government have hesitated for all these years. The hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) and a number of hon. Members have said that this was a matter more properly dealt with by the Admiralty. It is hardly fair for them to make that criticism when, with the possible exception of the hon. and gallant Member for Harrow, East—he may not have been here at the time—they were among those who voted with the Government on the Transfer of Functions Order in the winter of 1959, an Order which took responsibility for shipbuilding entirely out of the compass of the Admiralty. Since then we can mark our calamities in shipbuilding. The Admiralty did a far better job for it than the Ministry of Transport has ever done.
I join with those who have asked about the use of a fleet replenishment tanker, or some other naval vessel, as the first surface vessel owned by Great British to have a nuclear reactor aboard. Why do the Government constantly dodge this issue? Why do they not give an answer to the many questions which have been put to Ministers, including the Prime Minister? Why cannot we have a straight answer as to why it is inappropriate for a naval surface vessel to be the first vessel to carry nuclear propulsion?
It seems to me that there is a common denominator of propulsion between naval and merchant surface vessels. Since the Committee accepts—although I am surprised to hear it—that we shall actually make money, though not as much as we would if we went about it


in some other way, why cannot a decision be taken to go ahead with the building of this ship? It is said that it would not be economic, but it seems to me that something which makes money is better than something which loses it. I always thought that the case for building a nuclear vessel now was that it was worth losing money now to gain money in the future. Now we are told that it is a question whether we should gain only a little rather than gain a great deal later. The longer this argument continues, the more impatient I become with the Government in the way they have handled the matter.
It is a matter of regret that shipbuilding and the development of marine nuclear propulsion does not still rest with the Admiralty. Harry Truman had a very simple motto displayed on his desk. It said, "The buck stops here". All that we have seen since 1958, when we first became excited about the possibility of nuclear propulsion, is the buck being passed from innumerable committees through innumerable reports with innumerable recommendations, without any action being taken.
Even today, having been told for many years that the matter was being considered by various committees, the House of Commons does not know where it is. It was not a party manoeuvre when one of my hon. Friends suggested raising this matter with the Public Accounts Committee. He raised a legitimate issue. Considerable sums of public money have been spent, but we do not know what we have received in return. On Thursday the Leader of the House was asked several times whether he would arrange to have the Report of the Padmore Committee published in time for this debate. All that he said was that he would think about it, or that he would have second thoughts about it, or that he would look at the matter again. But the Government did not publish.
If the Parliamentary Secretary were here, I would remind him that it was hardly worth ending his otherwise good speech with a peroration which was completely partisan in its reference to my hon. Friends. The hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to the fusillade of questions which had been hurled at him

and at his fellow Ministers over the past few years. I would remind him that his hon. Friends have joined in the attack on Ministers on this issue, and quite rightly, too.
This Government are remarkable for not telling the House what it ought to know. Today we are discussing a Report which we have not seen. I do not know whether the rules of the House require that a report should be before us when we debate it, but I certainly thought that that was the procedure. Yet here we have the Parliamentary Secretary telling us what he thinks the Padmore Report contains, and of course we cannot check his statements.
The hon. and gallant Member for Harrow, East began by saying that he was very glad that he had been given reason to believe that the Padmore Committee was satisfied that we—that is Great Britain—were ahead in the development of nuclear propulsion. I assume that we are ahead of everybody, but who says so? The Parliamentary Secretary says that that is what the Padmore Committee says, but we have still to see the Report to be able to judge for ourselves.
The House of Commons is treated like a child. We are given no information, yet we are expected to decide an issue of this kind, and to trust the Government. I certainly do not trust the Government after all these years of indecision. This is not a party political issue. The political and ideological issues have long since been removed from this question of the building of nuclear ships. As the Parliamentary Secretary said, this vessel will be constructed by public enterprise.
He reminded us that shipowners are entitled to come forward at any time now and build any number of nuclear propelled ships on which they care to spend money. The fact is, however, that they will not build these ships. It follows, therefore, that the Government must build them if we are to keep our position as a shipbuilding nation.
There is no political argument in this issue, apart from the administrative one about the enthusiasm of Ministers which, to use the words of the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth, has become dull and pedestrian. But, in


spite of that, the hon. Lady will probably vote for her Government and for her dull pedestrian Ministers rather than join us in the Division Lobby.

Dame Irene Ward: I do not know what I would call hon. Members of the hon. Gentleman's party.

Dr. Mabon: The hon. Lady is very fair-minded. She ought to give us the chance to show what we can do. That is all that we ask for, and she can then judge the results.
As I said, the hon. Lady considers that the Ministers in charge of this issue have become dull and pedestrian, and have lost their excitement over this matter. That is the only point of political interest, because hon. Members on both sides of the Committee are united on the fundamental objective of this exercise. It is to get Britain into this race swiftly, and having done that, to make this country once again the finest shipbuilding nation in the world with the finest merchant shipping fleet. No one disagrees with that objective, even though the Secretary of State for Education and Science may have his reservations about the patriotism and loyalty of hon. Members on this side of the Committee. I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that no one on this side of the Committee, or, I hope, on that side, runs away from that as the object of this exercise.
This is not a question of whether this project can be carried out best by Socialism or by Conservatism. This is a project which only the British nation, the British taxpayer, can undertake satisfactorily. What we are complaining about is that Ministers have kept the House of Commons in the dark over what has happened. They have avoided all the questions which have been asked, and they have avoided telling us what is happening. If public money is involved, why are we not entitled to be told the various points of the argument?
Is it because we are technically ill-equipped to make these assessments? If we are, so are our Ministers. Even though I have a better scientific education than the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I would never pretend that I knew more than he did about nuclear propulsion. He arbitrates on these matters, but, of course, he does so with the help of his advisers. Why cannot

hon. Members on both sides of the Committee be given information from libraries, from White Papers, from Blue Books and from sources which are at the Minister's disposal so that we can make up our minds about whether the Government are wise in deciding to continue to postpone the financing and launching of a nuclear propelled merchant ship?
That is what I cannot understand. I hope that in the next Parliament we will begin to appreciate that so-called specialist committees are not to be despised, and that the Congressional system in America, with all its weaknesses, might find some attraction in discussing the spending of public money, which is why we are here anyway.
We are debating the building of this great ship of the future, yet hon. Members still do not know the full details of the argument. The time is coming when, if great sums of public money are to continue to be spent, Parliament must review its processes of discussion and debate to ensure that the decisions we make are wise ones. Part of our frustration tonight is based on the fact that we are being asked to trust Ministers who over the past eight years have shown us nothing but inadequate White Papers and recommendations, and have given evasive answers at Question Time. We are being asked to trust Ministers who have not confided in the House of Commons, as they ought to have done. The newspapers are full of the nuclear energy debate, not only in relation to the building of power stations but in relation to the building of surface craft.
I agree that shipowners will be the last people to come forward and finance the experimental stages of this work. Only last year near my constituency we celebrated the 100th anniversary of the "Comet". The "Comet" was an idea copied from the Americans. Indeed, it was pinched from the "Savannah" itself.
Yet the "Comet" was the symbolic beginning of all these great efforts to make the Clyde and all the great United Kingdom rivers the shipbuilding rivers of the world. Unless in this century we can get in on the ground floor of this development we shall not gain the place in the world which British shipbuilding and shipping deserve.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby: The hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) represents a fine shipbuilding town. I pay tribute to the work that has been done there in the past. The hon. Member is right in wishing to see British shipbuilding in the forefront, and Britain once again the first world shipbuilding nation. I agree with him that the Admiralty looked after the shipping industry well, and I share his regret that it was taken away from the Admiralty and placed under the Ministry of Transport, which is very busy with problems of road and railway.
In this all too short debate we are discussing something which I do not regard as a political question. A great deal is at stake for a maritime country like ours, with its great shipbuilding industry. We are discussing the question whether the right decisions have been made, and all through the debate hon. Members have complained about not being sufficiently informed on a technical subject such as this. As long as seven years ago I was on the other side of the table when the Admiralty was dealing with this question, but as a back bencher I must agree that Members are in some difficulty in being able to get to know enough of what is going on.
I realise that it is difficult to publish technical details which will be suitable for Parliament. Some secrets must be involved. Nevertheless, I hope that it will be possible for us to be given a little more information. The Ninth Annual Report of the Atomic Energy Authority devotes only three pages to a marine nuclear reactor, which is the equivalent of one page for each £1 million spent. I think that we might have been told a little more about that.
If there is any argument about the difficulties involved in technical judgments and in arriving at the correct technical decisions, all that needs to be done is to look at all the talk that there has been about our new nuclear power programme. We find the Atomic Energy Authority at loggerheads with the Central Electricity Generating Board, which is undecided whether a graphite modified reactor or some other type of reactor is the best one to go for.
I want to refer to the advances that we have made in the last seven years. I

would be the last to dispute the fact that decisions have been difficult, and that technical advances have not been as fast as we would have liked. Nevertheless, we have moved forward to some extent. The Atomic Energy Authority Report discusses the question whether an integrated system of reactors is a good one. Up to now I have been very sceptical about this, but I am somewhat reassured by what we are told in the Report.
Another subject touched upon is the question of the need for pure enrichment of marine reactors and whether the decision announced the other day that less plutonium will be required for military purposes will be a help in this respect, together with the fact that the Americans have, for the first time, fixed a commercial price for plutonium lower than some people expected.
During the past seven years other countries have advanced quite a long way. References have been made to the fact that the Germans and Japanese are going ahead with the building of nuclear-propelled ships, and we know that Russian and American nuclear-propelled ships are already in use. The hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) made a good point when he said that the American Navy now has a large number of nuclear-propelled ships. Considering that the American Navy has 60 or 70 ships—mostly submarines, I agree—propelled by nuclear propulsion, it is to be wondered whether this will be the type of machinery that is required for the future, and whether the "know-how" acquired by all this experience will be sufficient to make nuclear propulsion a commercial proposition.
In a room at home I have stuck up a comparative chart taken from a nuclear engineering magazine, showing the different types of nuclear reactor in operation in various European countries. It is an interesting list. Comparing the situation today with that of seven years ago, it is not difficult to see that other countries are going ahead fast. The A.E.A. has been preoccupied with a graphite moderator. Captain Atkins referred to it as a "slippery graphite slope." If less attention had been paid to the graphite moderator I wonder whether more time and money would have been devoted to other types which


would have been of more use to us in marine propulsion.
At the moment there is a lack of enthusiasm among ship-owners because they are doubtful whether nuclear propulsion is a commercial proposition. The same situation existed seven years ago. There are also doubts concerning our possession of a system which has real possibilities as an economic proposition. As a layman, it is not easy to judge of that matter. But we read in the Report that it is hoped to reduce the price of a reactor by between £500,000 and £750,000 apiece for a series, and that does not sound a very terrifying figure.
If we apply a rigid commercial test for ships, why should not we apply the same test for power stations? We had a huge programme for nuclear power stations, none of which was economic. At this moment we are going to have a further programme of eight or 10 more nuclear power stations, and it is doubtful whether they will be truly commercial. I know that it can be pleaded for the C.E.G.B. that other factors are involved. There is a shortage of fuel. But if we are prepared to plunge £450 million into the building of nuclear power stations, should we begrudge the small amount of £4 million involved in building a nuclear ship, if we are to call ourselves a maritime nation? It seems that we are a little out of balance if we take that attitude. I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear that point in mind when he makes this very difficult decision.
There are other factors which might be argued to warrant a further delay, but we can go on delaying almost indefinitely because of technical details. The time has now come, or it must be very near, when we should be able to take a step further. I do not know how successful Vulcain has been, and how far we have got with it. We have heard that a long time ago conversations took place with shipowning and shipbuilding interests. Surely the time has come when it should be decided fairly definitely what kind of ship we are going to have and who will own it. Presumably the Government will have to find most of the money.
We know, too, that more than one design of ship is in being. Cannot we

move a stage further, so that when the word "go" is given for the ship, a reactor can be built at the same time? All the other countries who are operating reactors are gaining a lot of experience, which we are not getting. I do not suppose that we shall reach finality with the first reactor when we place it in a merchant vessel or a fast replenishment tanker, but we should put it to the test soon. I hope that as soon as we have a reliable reactor system the Government will not hesitate to use it for marine purposes and risk £4 million or £5 million, when they are hazarding so much for the sake of nuclear power.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. John Rankin: I should like to declare a personal interest in the debate. It is not a financial one, but as the hon. Member for Govan I have the Fairfield shipbuilding yard in my constituency, and the Fairfield Company, in association with Mitchells, have been deeply interested in nuclear development and have produced a reactor which in my view ought to merit most serious consideration from the Government. I hope that it will be only after the most serious thought that we bring to our use nuclear reactors from another country when within our own borders there are people who claim to have produced reactors which are unmatched anywhere else. In the display five or six years ago, which has been referred to during the debate, the work of the Fairfield-Mitchell consortium was highly praised. I hope that that will be kept in mind by the right hon. Gentleman when he replies.
I must also make a confession in that I made a mistake when I interrupted the Parliamentary Secretary to point out that as a result of the decline in the cost of producing enriched uranium there had been consequential changes which were resulting in the production of a reactor which weighed 500 tons—not 1,000 tons, as I said—compared with the 1,500 tons weight of the previous type of reactor—a reduction of 1,000 tons. That, I said, was a most significan and revolutionary advance; but I do not think that the Parliamentary Secretary grasped the significance of that change.
The hon. and gallant Member for Harrow, East (Commander Courtney)


gave us far more information and knowledge in a few of his sentences than the Parliamentary Secretary gave us in the whole of his speech. The hon. and gallant Member for Harrow, East, reminded us that when we passed from sail to steam there was tremendous opposition. There was even great opposition when we changed from wood to cast iron. People feared sailing in cast iron vessels because iron sank when put into water.
As a result of the change from wood to cast iron, there was a fundamental change in design. We proceeded from the U-shaped ship in wood to the V-shaped ship in cast iron. I am told by my advisers that in the change from oil-fired to nuclear-driven ships there will not necessarily be any change in design—and this is one of the points which puzzles me in the debate. The nuclear-driven ship will follow the design of ships sailing at present. It might, therefore, have been emphasised that if we go ahead and build a ship driven by nuclear power, even if the nuclear unit is not successful we shall still have a ship which can be driven by the usual power unit and which can be used like an ordinary ship.
If the right hon. Gentleman keeps that in mind he may be able to carry out a promise which was made as far back as 1959 when the Prime Minister informed us in Glasgow that the Government proposed to build two new Cunarders. Parliament sought to honour that promise by providing the Government with money to help build one new Cunarder. Today, on the eve of another election, we have no new Cunarders. If the Government wanted to do something of benefit to the country they could use the money which they are saving in breaking their promise about the Cunarder by applying it to build a nuclear-propelled ship.
If I cannot carry the right hon. Gentleman with me on these suggestions, at least he will not dissent when I say that on both sides of the House there has been agreement that nuclear power is threatening to displace the oil-fired boiler in merchant ships. He will also agree that it will be difficult to make the break-through unless we have progressive experience in the construction and operation of nuclear-propelled

vessels. The hon. and gallant Member for Harrow, East made a point of that and said that we must have the vessels in which we can see how the nuclear unit will work.
Submarine experience has been mentioned, but in my view the submarine is not a boat. It is a weapon. No one wants to use it to travel from here to there. It is of little help to us in gaining experience for use in merchant ships. Experience gained in operating the nuclear submarine is of no use in solving the difficulties of the merchant ship. For example, the fuel used in the underwater vessel is highly enriched, and this disposes of such problems as the size of the reactor and the weight of shielding in an uneconomical way which is not at all acceptable in a merchant vessel and which can be justified only on the grounds of military needs. Further, the hull of the submarine is a pressure vessel. The crew are all on military service, and the need for a separate structure to contain fission products in the event of an accident is obviated.
In my view, and it is the view of some hon. Members on both sides of the House, operation with Service naval vessels would have been more apposite in contributing experience to the problem of merchant shipping. It is a matter for regret that this avenue of development has not been explored in Britain. It was of great help in developing America's merchant ship the "Savannah" and the Russian ship "Lenin" the reactors of which are of military design.
I may pose the question, why is it that today we have been pressing the Government so vigorously about the need to build a nuclear-powered merchant ship? It is for one simple reason. The break-through which some have doubted and for which many have been looking has been achieved. There have been two successive reductions in the price of enriched uranium. These reductions result in certain important consequences. First, we are now in the position where, for the same fuel cost, we can get a greater degree of enrichment. This means, secondly, a reduction in fuel weight, which by itself is of great economic significance because, thirdly, less fuel weight means a more compact core. Fourthly, many other


consequential advantages, which I cannot go into now, follow, and result in the elimination of most of the equipment occupying the containment vessel, except the reactor itself.
In the end, the snowballing character of this sequence expresses itself in a weight saving of about 1,000 tons in the reactor. This is a revolutionary change. The figures I have quoted refer to a unit of 20,000–25,000 shaft horsepower. As a result of this development, the improvements which have been made could be used to ensure that re-fuelling would take place every three years, instead of once a year as at present.
The tremendous change which has taken place in the outlook for nuclear propulsion of merchant ships means that the Government must now go ahead. They cannot play the part of Lot's wife. If they do not go ahead, years will be lost, years which will never be reclaimed, for other countries such as Japan and West Germany will forge ahead, and we shall never overtake them.
The situation in regard to nuclear propulsion of ships at the moment could be compared with that of the beginning of the diesel engine 30 or 40 years ago. It was developed outside Britain for many years. As a result, Britain lagged behind and lost her predominant place in the ship engine market. If we are to succeed in this venture, the first ship to be constructed must be Government-sponsored. I hope to hear that declaration from the right hon. and learned Gentleman later.
At this stage we must not expect complete parity with conventional propulsion. When the Parliamentary Secretary repeatedly said that a nuclear unit would not be economic, he was evading the issue, and he knew it. Economic compared with what? We cannot expect it to be economic compared with conventional propulsion. We shall still be in the period of experiment. The ship might go trading as far as the Middle East, but that would be part of the experiment. When it returned from such a voyage, it would remain in home waters, and there the economic study of nuclear propulsion would be proceeded with. Another longer voyage might be undertaken, but it must not be forgotten

that between voyages we shall have to experiment with the ship to gain the experience that is necessary for adjustment and assessment in reaching a final judgment, and for providing the pattern which will determine the nuclear ships which we will be building in the future.
This will mean the expenditure of a great deal of money. But it is investment in the future, investment which will secure the shipbuilding and shipping future of Great Britain and perhaps restore us to the world position in these two great industries which has slipped from our grasp.
To achieve that claim in respect of the nuclear ship there must be parity of treatment with aviation. Development in aviation is Government-sponsored. We are investing enormous sums to secure our future in the air so that we may build aircraft which will sell on a worldwide scale. To do this we construct first our prototype aircraft. Five of them may be built, to begin with. We fly long distances. We experiment with them on engines, instrumentation, hydraulics, wheels, and so on. When all the trials are complete; all the adjustments made; all the errors eradicated, and the assessment of their worth finalised, we proceed with mass production and hope in that way to get a return on what we have spent.
Our approach to the problem of a nuclear ship must be on somewhat similar lines. We may not build five of them. I am not suggesting that. I am merely making a comparison. At least we can build two, so that we may test different types of reactors against one another. I know that when the matter is viewed in terms of the £ s. d. which will be involved, as the debate has shown some people become somewhat timorous. However, we can gain some help from American and Russian experience. They have met with nuclear problems and to a large extent they have cured their problems. With the help of the "Lenin", the northern seas and the Russian shores are now kept open 12 months of the year. I admit that at the moment we do not hear much about the American ship, but I believe this is due, not to technical or technological faults, but to labour differences within the ship.
Tonight we are faced with a great issue—whether or not to go forward with this new development. My view is that we must advance. We must have confidence in ourselves because we feel that confidence, and because we have other examples of progress in this type of development to guide us into the future; which in my view is not quite so dark as some hon. Members opposite, particularly the Parliamentary Secretary, have tried to paint it today.

6.39 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Quintin Hogg): I agree with those hon. Members, of whom there have been several, who have said that this is not a subject which very readily lends itself to polemics, because it must depend in the long run upon a technical assessment of the future of nuclear marine propulsion in general and of different reactor systems in particular. I hope that the Committee will bear with me if I attempt to place squarely before it one or two of the technical considerations which I think we must bear in mind.
Before I begin to do that, I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I say one personal thing. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) began by congratulating Earl Alexander of Hillsborough on his recovery. I should like to endorse that. The noble Earl very bravely and vigorously led the Opposition in another place for three years when my place was opposite him. I hope, that during that time, he acquired a respect and affection for me. I certainly had a great affection and respect for him and I was deeply distressed the other day to read that he had been taken ill during the course of his duties. I was glad to hear from the hon. Member for Sunderland, North that he is now restored to health. I hope that he will now be able to enjoy the Garter as the latest in the long series of honours which have been bestowed on him.
The first thing I want to say on this subject tonight is that up to and including the present we have been following the weight of expert opinion as expressed in recent years by the Padmore Working Group. If that has

been wrong, although I do not believe that it has, we cannot be criticised for following what we believed to have been the weight of expert opinion, particularly since the Padmore Committee is widely respected and has been carefully composed.
I also agree with hon. Members who have said that we are under a real handicap in not having the report of that Committee before us. It is no more than right that I should say that I will do my best to see that that committee's report is placed before Parliament and the public during the next month—more or less as we have received it. My hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out that various signatories may have signed that report without a view to its publication. We must, therefore, consult them, for there might be matters about which there is a commercially confidential element. I appreciate, however, that it is of great importance that hon. Members should have the information available, and I hope hon. Members will agree that this is the right course to take.
As my hon. and gallant Friend made plain in his admirable opening speech, the burden of the advice we have received from that committee is that we shall shortly be faced with an important commercial and political choice. Up to now we have taken technical advice, but we shall be faced, as I say, with the important commercial and political choice either to abandon altogether—at least for the time being—the kind of research we have been undertaking in the immediate past or else to take the next logical step, which is the development and construction of an experimental ship.
Before hon. Members form a view on this matter, I am sure that they will wish to see the technical assessments, of which there are several, in the report on which the advice of the committee is based. Hon. Members will find that the arguments are rather more nicely balanced than the enthusiastic supporters of marine nuclear propulsion have led us to believe. All I would say at this stage is this. We could, of course, have put a reactor into a merchant ship at any time one likes to mention during the last four years—and probably for a longer time than that. Some hon. Members—though I think not on the Front Bench opposite—have suggested that we should have done that.


I am myself convinced that we were right not to do it. There would have been marginal advantages in so doing, and they can be summarised under two heads.
The first is that when one is using a novel type of propulsion then, obviously, whatever one does, there will, from the point of view of the naval architect, be substantial changes in constructional design. The mere fact that there are safety hazards to be considered—the possibility of collision at sea—means that one cannot simply put a propulsion unit into the place which would have been occupied by conventional machinery without constructional changes. We would have gained marginally, by putting a reactor into a ship and launching it, certain additional advantages from the point of view of the naval architect. The second is that we would have gained seagoing experience with nuclear propulsion.
These advantages would have been gained and there were people who thought that we should have made the effort some time ago. If we had intended to do it the right time to do that would, I think, have been about four years ago. However, I am sure that we would have been wrong to do that. The reactor, to begin with, which we would have used would have been of a type which offered no further chance of development. It would have been an obsolete type and when the ultimate form of commercial type is found, if it is, much of the experience we would have gained, even on the two marginal points to which I have referred, would have been completely wasted. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That, at any rate, is the advice we received and this is my conviction about the past. Those who think that we should have built into a ship an obsolete reactor of American technology are making an error of commercial judgment.

Mr. Willey: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is making a critical point. He has said that four years ago, about 1960, was the time when this might have been done. Is he aware that at that time the Government invited tenders and then spent 18 months considering them? It seems that his remarks confirm the allegation I made about the Government having made a crucial mistake on this issue.

Mr. Hogg: Although I said four years ago I really meant five years ago, at

approximately the time when the exhibition took place in Whitehall; several hon. Members have referred to this exhibition.
I am convinced that that would have been a mistake. There was no system in existence then which was capable of commercial development and I am sure that we were right then, and also after the experience of the tenders, at any rate to go forward to see whether a more advanced type of reactor was available so that we could make up our minds about it. I am sure that that would put us, and will put us—if we make the choice to which I have referred—in a better position vis-à-vis the other nations than if we had attempted to build, in effect, another "Savannah".
Of the various types of reactor systems, two were selected for further consideration. The Padmore Group—and if I am allowed to publish the report, which I will do my best to do, hon. Members will see that this is so—has come to the conclusion that we were right to select those. Clearly, only one of them, because they were similar reactor systems, ought to have been proceeded with, and we have decided that of those two the Vulcain is the one to be proceeded with and is most likely to be a success within a reasonable period of time. The other would require a very substantial and much more protracted research and development programme.

Mr. Rankin: rose—

Mr. Hogg: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press me to give way, because I have much to say and I must sit down at a given time, rather before seven o'clock.

Mr. Rankin: So had I much to say.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman had longer than I have in which to state his case.
I am sure that, first, we were right to investigate those two systems, and, secondly, that of those two we were right to choose the Vulcain. I am equally sure that, thirdly, we were perfectly right—in view of the public criticism which had been levelled—to examine the other types, both the American and British reactor systems side by side, as well as being right in our


choice between the two which we have selected.
I may say that although there is not a great deal between the six choices in the field, the Padmore Group has, for one reason or another, come down in favour of the Vulcain as being the most likely. The Vulcain shows two distinctive marks of a reactor system: the first is its integral character, and the second is its reliance on the device called the spectral shift.
Speaking only for a moment of what Captain Atkins has said, his only two criticisms on the technical advantages or disadvantages of the reactor we have selected were directed, first, to its integral character, and, secondly, to the feasibility of the use, in seagoing conditions, of the spectral shift. The unanimous view of the Padmore Group has been that on both issues Captain Atkins was mistaken, and that any future reactor system that has a chance of success will incorporate the integral factor; and that the spectral shift, although there is some dispute about this, will be a perfectly feasible device to use in seagoing conditions.
This device consists simply of adding a little fresh water to the moderating water of the reactor at intervals of, perhaps, three days, at one stage of the burner. I cannot believe that it is beyond the capabilities of a reasonably intelligent man to do that, even if, as I believe will be the case, a machine to do it automatically has not been devised by the time the ship is ready to go to sea. I therefore think that we were right to select those two types for further investigation, and to include other types in our investigation.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) referred to the Mitchell reactor. Again, this is one of the six candidates, but it is fair to say that, like the I.B.R., it is not a piece of hardware, but a piece of paper. In the judgment of those advising us, it would involve a longer period of research and development if it were to be put in a ship than would the Vulcain.
It is fair, and I must say it in order to put the position candidly before the Committee, to say that there has been a shift against the economics of nuclear

marine propulsion in the last 12 months. My hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward) asked me about the advice received by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan). I am not aware that he received any advice except from the Padmore Group, but, of course, Prime Ministers can seek advice, and sometimes obtain it, from other sources—or, indeed, their own inspiration—but I think that it is worth while for me to say a word about the relevant economics at this stage, and as at the present date, of nuclear and conventional marine propulsion.
All nuclear reactors, which are at present only ways of heating steam to go in a boiler, compare with conventional sources of power in being very much more expensive to install. This is true of both the land reactor and the marine nuclear reactor. The marine nuclear reactor has one advantage that the other does not possess, which is that the ship is thereby saved the trouble and space involved in storing fuel. But it also has two disadvantages not possessed by the land reactor. In the first place, the greatest economy can be obtained from running a nuclear reactor at base load, which is always done in our land schemes. The ship cannot do this, because it spends a great deal of time in port. Secondly, the land reactor can operate on a much bigger scale than can a marine nuclear reactor and, on the whole, the best economy in running is obtained by nuclear reactors of a larger size.
During the past year there has been a considerable and significant improvement in conventional machinery. In particular, the advice we have received is that the correct comparison is with large diesels, and no longer with turbines. Secondly, bunker fuel has reduced in cost, and our advice is that the cost of running conventional ships has gone down. I am afraid that, despite the change to which the hon. Member for Govan referred—and as will be seen when we publish the report—this has shifted the balance slightly against nuclear ships, and I must again tell the hon. Gentleman that whatever advantage the nuclear ship may have in future it is unlikely to oust conventional machinery, if at all, except in the very large and


very fast class of vessel. It is, therefore, not comparable with the change from sail to mechanical propulsion, either in the way that has been suggested from this side of the Committee or in the way suggested from the benches opposite.
I am not frightened of the various steps taken by our various rivals in the field. The "Lenin"—I think that is the name of the Russian icebreaker—is a ship that does not pretend to be economic, and has no economic development potential. It is there for an operational requirement—as an ice breaker. I do not think that we need be afraid of that from the point of view of our Merchant Navy. The "Savannah", again, is an obsolete vessel, in my judgment, with an obsolete reactor—in spite of its great beauty and its fine appearance. I do not believe that the Americans will be able to develop the "Savannah", and as a result of their unhappy experience with it they are showing remarkable lack of enthusiasm for further developments.
The Germans are putting into their ship a reactor which, in our judgment,

is behind the Vulcain. Of course, if what is wanted is seagoing experience, we would choose, like the Germans, one of the American reactors; but we believe that, if we are to go on with this, a more advanced type of reactor is desirable. The Japanese are selecting a smaller vessel than we would think appropriate, and still have not selected the type of reactor.

I am convinced that the right course now is to publish the report. What we are faced with is a political and a commercial judgment, and in the light of the information, which is the best that we can make available, the House, the country and the Government can make up their minds.

Mr. Willey: I think that my right course now is to move, That Item Class IV, Vote 11 (Minitsry of Transport), be reduced by £5.

Question put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 200, Noes 261.

Division No. 87.]
AYES
[7.0 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Dodds, Norman
Janner, Sir Barnett


Ainsley, William
Doig, Peter
Jay, Rt. Hon, Douglas


Albu, Austen
Driberg, Tom
Jeger, George


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Barnett, Guy
Evans, Albert
Kelley, Richard


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Finch, Harold
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Beaney, Alan
Fitch, Alan
King, Dr. Horace


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Fletcher, Eric
Ledger, Ron


Benn, Anthony Wedgwood
Foley, Maurice
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Benson, Sir George
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Blackburn, F.
Galpern, Sir Myer
Lipton, Marcus


Blyton, William
Ginsburg, David
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
McBride, N.


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S. W.)
Gourlay, Harry
McCann, J.


Bowles, Frank
Greenwood, Anthony
MacColl, James


Boyden, James
Grey, Charles
McInnes, James


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Gunter, Ray
McLeavy, Frank


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Mahon, Simon


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hannan, William
Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Callaghan, James
Harper, Joseph
Manuel, Archie


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Mapp, Charles


Cliffe, Michael
Hayman, F. H.
Marsh, Richard


Collick, Percy
Healey, Denis
Mason, Roy


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Mayhew, Christopher


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Mellish, R. J.


Cronin, John
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Mendelson, J. J.


Crosland, Anthony
Hilton, A. V.
Millan, Bruce


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Holman, Percy
Mitchison, G. R.


Darling, George
Houghton, Douglas
Monslow, Walter


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Moody, A. S.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hoy, James H.
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Moyle, Arthur


Deer, George
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Neal, Harold


Delargy, Hugh
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Dempsey, James
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)


Diamond, John
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
O'Malley, B. K.




Oram, A. E.
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Oswald, Thomas
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Owen, Will
Ross, William
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Paget, R. T.
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)
Thornton, Ernest


Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Tomney, Frank


Pargiter, G. A.
Silkin, John
Wainwright, Edwin


Parker, John
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Warbey, William


Paton, John
Skeffington, Arthur
Watkins, Tudor


Pavitt, Laurence
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Weitzman, David


Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Peart, Frederick
Small, William
White, Mrs. Eirene


Pentland, Norman
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Whitlock, William


Popplewell, Ernest
Snow, Julian
Wilkins, W. A.


Prentice, R. E.
Sorensen, R. W.
Willey, Frederick


Probert, Arthur
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Spriggs, Leslie
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Randall, Harry
Steele, Thomas
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Rankin, John
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Redhead, E. C.
Stonehouse, John
Woof, Robert


Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Stones, William
Wyatt, Woodrow


Reid, William
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Rhodes, H.
Stross, Sir Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Zilliacus, K.


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Swain, Thomas



Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Swingler, Stephen
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Symonds, J. B.
Mr. Lawson and Dr. Broughton.


Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Taverne, D.



NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John


Allason, James
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hopkins, Alan


Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian
Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Hornby, R. P.


Arbuthnot, Sir John
Doughty, Charles
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Alec
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Drayson, G. B.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John


Barber, Rt. Hon. Anthony
du Cann, Edward
Hughes-Young, Michael


Barter, John
Duncan, Sir James
Hulbert, Sir Norman


Batsford, John
Eden, Sir John
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Iremonger, T. L.


Bell, Ronald
Elliott, R. W. (Newc'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Emery, Peter
James, David


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Errington, Sir Eric
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Bidgood, John C.
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Biffen, John
Farr, John
Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith


Bingham, R. M.
Fell, Anthony
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Fisher, Nigel
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.


Bishop, Sir Patrick
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Black, Sir Cyril
Forrest, George
Kerr, Sir Hamilton


Bossom, Hon. Clive
Foster, Sir John
Kershaw, Anthony


Bourne-Arton, A.
Freeth, Denzil
Kimball, Marcus


Box, Donald
Gammans, Lady
Kitson, Timothy


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Gibson-Watt, David
Lagden, Godfrey


Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Braine, Bernard
Glover, Sir Douglas
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Brewis, John
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Leather, Sir Edwin


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Goodhart, Philip
Leavey, J. A.


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Goodhew, Victor
Legge Bourke, Sir Harry


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Gower, Raymond
Lilley, F. J. P.


Buck, Antony
Grant-Ferris, R.
Linstead, Sir Hugh


Bullard, Denys
Green, Alan
Litchfield, Capt. John


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'n C'dfield)


Burden, F. A.
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)



Gurden, Harold



Butcher, Sir Herbert
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Longbottom, Charles


Campbell, Gordon
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Longden, Gilbert


Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert (Mitcham)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Loveys, Walter H.


Cary, Sir Robert
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn


Channon, H. P. G.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Chataway, Christopher
Harvie Anderson, Miss
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Hastings, Stephen
MacArthur, Ian


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hay, John
McLaren, Martin


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Cleaver, Leonard
Hendry, Forbes
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute&amp;N. Ayrs)


Cole, Norman
Hiley, Joseph
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Cooke, Robert
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
McMaster, Stanley R.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Maddan, Martin


Costain, A. P.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Maginnis, John E.


Coulson, Michael
Hocking, Philip N.
Maitland, Sir John


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Quintin
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Crawley, Aidan
Holland, Philip
Marlowe, Anthony


Critchley, Julian
Hollingworth, John
Marshall, Sir Douglas


Crowder, F. P.
Holt, Arthur
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Hooson, H. E.
Maude, Angus (Stratford-on-Avon)


Currie, G. B. H.

Mawby, Ray







Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Ridsdale, Julian
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Rippon, Rt. Hon. Geoffrey
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Mills, Stratton
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)


Miscampbell, Norman
Robertson, Sir D. (C'thn's &amp; S'th'ld)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Montgomery, Fergus
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Robson Brown, Sir William
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Morgan, William
Roots, William
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Morrison, John
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Neave, Airey
Russell, Sir Ronald
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Scott-Hopkins, James
Vane, W. M. F.


Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Seymour, Leslie
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael
Sharpies, Richard
Vickers, Miss Joan


Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Shaw, M.
Wade, Donald


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Skeet, T. H. H.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Osborn, John (Hallam)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)
Wall, Patrick


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John
Ward, Dame Irene


Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher
Webster, David


Peel, John
Spearman, Sir Alexander
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Percival, Ian
Speir, Rupert
Whitelaw, William


Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Stainton, Keith
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Pitt, Dame Edith
Stodart, J. A.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Pounder, Rafton
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Storey, Sir Samuel
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Studholme, Sir Henry
Wise, A. R.


Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Talbot, John E.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Pym, Francis
Tapsell, Peter
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Quennell, Miss J. M.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Woodnutt, Mark


Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. Sir Peter
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Worsley, Marcus


Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)



Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)
Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Rees-Davies, W. R. (Isle of Thanet)
Teeling, Sir William
Mr. Chichester-Clark and


Renton, Rt. Hon. David
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Mr. Finlay.


Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

It being after Seven o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair, further Proceeding standing postponed until after the consideration of Private Business set down by direction of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business).

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: resumed the Chair.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I have a point to raise with regard to the proceedings in the debate which has just concluded and which I raised mildly in my speech but not as a point of order at that time.
May I direct your attention to the fact that, in the last debate, the Minister—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): Order. I cannot deal now

with anything which happened in Committee.

Dr. Mabon: With respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, it is a very important matter—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. That may be so, but I cannot deal with anything which happened in Committee. The hon. Gentleman must seek another way or raising the matter.

Dr. Mabon: It is a point of order which I am raising now, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I did raise the matter in Committee—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but I have given my Ruling that I cannot deal now with what happened in Committee.

Dr. Mabon: Then I shall write to Mr. Speaker. It is outrageous.

BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill, as amended, be now considered.

7.11 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan: I beg to move, to leave out "now" and at the end of the Question to add "upon this day six months."
In exercising the privilege of speaking from this Dispatch Box, I had better make clear at the outset that I am in no sense speaking for the Opposition. This is not a party matter. It is a Private Bill which every Member of the House approaches according to his own convictions and beliefs. However, I thought that it would, nevertheless, be appropriate for me to exercise the privilege which I have enjoyed for a very long time. Also, I should make clear at the outset that I am not in any way concerned with the part of the Bill which deals with Immingham or the other parts which do not relate to South Wales. I am concerned only with that part which deals with the position in South Wales.
The Bill is particularly significant because the project for a new dock proposed at Port Talbot is one of two major projects now before Parliament in various stages. One project, which, of course, I must not mention in detail, is still in another place, but the Bill is, I understand, shortly to be given its Third Reading. The other project is before us now in this Bill.
The importance of all the projects for importing iron ore into South Wales can be gauged from the fact that 45 per cent. of all United Kingdom imports of iron ore come in through three ports in South Wales, Port Talbot, Cardiff and Newport. By far the biggest percentage comes in through Port Talbot, a small percentage comes in through Cardiff and a medium percentage, which will rapidly grow, comes in through Newport.
The second significant aspect of the matter is that up to 30 per cent. of the price of iron ore, the raw material which is used in manufacturing steel, is made up of freight charges. Thus, anything

which adds to or subtracts from freight charges is of great significance in relation to the total cost of steel.
This Bill involves an expenditure of about £14 million by the British Transport Docks Board. The Bill in another place would involve the expenditure of about £18 million. Altogether, therefore, at various stages going through either this House or the other House, there are projects of over £30 million in total value. The purpose is to improve dock facilities for the importation of ore and so to reduce the cost of bringing it in.
Nobody, least of all I myself, will deny that improved facilities are needed. In my view they are long overdue, and the criticism I would make is that what is before us now should have been before us some years ago. It may be thought rather strange, therefore, that I am opposing the Bill. However, I have very good grounds for so doing, and I shall explain them at length.
The case for improving facilities lies in the growth in the size of iron ore carriers. Ten years ago these ore carriers had a size of about 10,000 to 15,000 tons dead weight. Today, they are of about 30,000 to 40,000 tons, with a correspondingly deeper draught. Some ore carriers are now as large as 60,000 tons, and there is an ore carrier of 80,000 tons now being built in Japan. These large ships naturally lead to substantial economies, but they need first-class landing facilities which are extremely expensive to provide.
The question for decision by the House is, how many importing points are necessary when each point is as expensive as it is turning out to be? I have already referred to an expenditure of £14 million under this Bill and further expenditure of £18 million under another Bill, and I believe that, later, there will be a third. This is a matter of public interest and the House has to consider the question. Is each steelworks to have its own point of discharge? Are separate discharging points the cheapest and most efficient means of discharging iron ore?
This Bill proceeds on the basis that they are, and on the assumption that it is important that Port Talbot should have its own discharging facilities. The other Bill proceeds on the basis that


Richard Thomas and Baldwins at Newport should have its own discharging facilities. We have heard nothing as yet from Guest Keen Iron and Steel at Cardiff, but if the economies of scale which derive from large carriers are equally applicable everywhere, as I assume they are, at some stage Guest Keen Iron and Steel of Cardiff will be bound to say that it, too, needs facilities to bring 30,000, 40,000 or 50,000 tonners into Cardiff in order to get its iron ore as cheaply as others do. This is the right moment to consider the whole question of principle. It is the first opportunity we have had to consider the proper approach to this major problem.
In South Wales, because of the nature of the coastline and because of the large rise and fall in the tide, a large ore carrier with a draft of 40 to 50 feet, as some will undoubtedly have in 10 or 15 years, needs one of two things: either there mast be an enclosed dock—and, because of the nature of the coastline, this, on the whole, will involve considerable sums spent annually on dredging—or there must be jetties running out into the Bristol Channel to a considerable distance. At Newport, the proposal is that the jetty should run out 4½ miles into the Channel, as this is where the water is of an appropriate depth for these very large carriers. Port Talbot has chosen the dock and that is what we are considering in this Bill. Richard Thomas and Baldwins have chosen the jetty.
Either method is expensive, as I have said. The dock at Port Talbot is to cost £14 million and the jetty at Newport is to cost £18 million. If Guest Keen Iron and Steel decides that it needs large ore carriers too, this will certainly involve another £5 million. I am being very modest there, and I imagine that it may be very much more than that.
Therefore, by giving assent to this Bill and agreeing to the principle that each major steelworks of the three in South Wales should have its own point of import, we shall be accepting a total of an ultimate expenditure of about £40 million. Such a sum cannot go undebated. This is my answer to my hon. Friends concerned with Port Talbot, some of whom are a little restive that I should have thought fit to challenge or

question their project. I do not believe that anyone could easily allow £40 million expenditure—that is what we are being committed to overall—to be accepted and passed through the House without the question of public policy being debated.
My major criticism of the presentation of the Bill at this time is that it has been presented without anyone having stated his conclusions on the basic question of principle—one terminal, two terminals or three terminals, a terminal for every steel works, two terminals for the three, or one for the three? I should have thought that this was a preliminary and fundamental question which should have been put long before the Bills were presented. I cannot understand why this Bill should have been put forward in advance of an answer being given to this basic question. If one terminal should be found to be feasible, then I say without fear of contradiction that it will prove to be very much cheaper than two or three terminals and is therefore bound to be in the long term interests of the steel industry of South Wales and, moreover, will save millions of pounds.
Estimates have been made showing that by using one ore terminal instead of two the overall port costs of discharging ore could be reduced from £7 million to £4 million per annum—a saving of £3 million a year. By using a single terminal, if it is found to be feasible, individual steel works could save as much as 5s. 0d. per ton, or more, on ore discharged.

Mr. Raymond Gower: Can the hon. Member help the House by saying whether those figures take account of any extra expenditure involved in transportation after the ore has been landed if there is one single terminal at a considerable distance from one of the works?

Mr. Callaghan: I have given the figure which is, I think, the least favourable. I could have given figures which would have been more favourable. It would be possible to have this single terminal at Port Talbot, Cardiff, Barry or Newport. I have chosen, on the basis of the figures which have been worked out in some detail and given to me, the least favourable example. But even if it were based in Barry, where there is


no steel works, the benefit of a single terminal would save all the steel companies, that is, Richard Thomas and Baldwins, Guest Keen Iron and Steel and the Steel Company of Wales—several shillings per ton if it is found to be feasible. This is a question which I must face.
I raised this question eight months ago and so far I have not received a satisfactory answer. Four months ago I sent detailed plans, which had been prepared by a firm of consultants on my behalf, free of charge, Messrs. Wallace Evans and Partners of Penarth, to all the major interests in South Wales. I sent a copy of a proposal for a single central terminal to Richard Thomas and Baldwins, Guest Keen Iron and Steel, the Steel Company of Wales, the Western Region of British Railways, the Iron and Steel Board, the British Transport Docks Board and the Minister of Transport, among others. No one can claim that I have suddenly thought of a bright idea and that I am trying to hold up the Bill with fractious opposition. I have lived with the Bill for many months.
Three months ago I had the advantage of an interview with Sir Cyril Musgrave, the Chairman of the Iron and Steel Board, after I sent him the proposal for a single central terminal. He told me—and I do not think that I am betraying a confidence—that consideration was being given to the possibility of a single port. I also met the Chairman of the British Transport Docks Board on 5th March. He told me that the Board was pursuing investigations in an endeavour—and this was a rather generalised phrase—to determine the best and most economic means of importing ore in the national interest. I deduced from that that he meant a central terminal, but that was not quite what was said.
This Bill is putting the cart before the horse. Studies of centralisation and its feasibility and advantages should have been made before this Bill, or any other Bill, was put before the House. The House is entitled to know what conclusions are drawn from the possibility of having one central terminal as against two or three. We have not been told, and it is for this reason that I question this Bill.
The Iron and Steel Board was given powers under Section 11(1,a) of the Iron and Steel Act, 1953, to provide for distribution through an agency service or otherwise of raw materials when imported as a common service to the industry if satisfactory arrangements do not exist. It was therefore open to the Board, under the Iron and Steel Act, to set the investigation in motion a long time ago—in my view, that is not just its responsibility but its duty—to see what was the most efficient means of importing iron ore into South Wales, which accounts for 45 per cent. of the total iron ore brought into these islands. It has not exercised these powers, for reasons for which it must account, nor has it said that satisfactory arrangements exist. Everyone is going his own way separately. The British Transport Docks Board has put forward this Bill. At Newport, quite apart from the proposition put forward for this jetty, the British Transport Docks Board is proposing to spend £30,000 on a dredging scheme as an alternative to the Newport jetty. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir. F. Soskice) may wish to speak about this. This involves cutting a channel 750 feet long and 180 feet wide.
The scheme proposed for Newport is alternative to the Richard Thomas and Baldwins jetty scheme, so the British Docks Board is investigating at a cost of £30,000 a scheme at Newport different from the one put forward by the Board. Because it is germane to the fact that some people claim, I am sure with justification, that it is important that a ship should be able to discharge iron ore right up against the works, I should say that in the case of the Richard Thomas and Baldwins scheme the distance from the ship at the end of the jetty to the works will be eight miles. If one dock or one jetty were found to be feasible, there is no doubt that great economies would result from its greater use.
I am told that the directors of Richard Thomas and Baldwins informed objectors in Bristol that ore ships would occupy their jetty for only 18 per cent. of the time. As I have said, this scheme will cost £18 million. If it is feasible—and we do not know the answer to this—to use one jetty for the three major steelworks, I multiply 18 per cent. of the time by three and ask


whether it would not be better, if feasible, to use one jetty for 54 per cent. of the time than three jetties each for 18 per cent. of the time. These are the sort of questions to which no public answer has been given, and I believe that it should be given before we agree to this Bill.
The discharge of iron ore is very much easier now than it was before the war. Grabs can work 24 hours a day. They have a capacity of 20 tons a lift. It would be possible from a central jetty, if that were feasible, to tranship ore either by sea or rail and, despite the double handling, still to effect essential economics because of the larger capital cost involved in any one of these projects.
Senior officials of the Western Region—I speak with full authority—have made a careful and detailed analysis of the most likely future size of ore carriers. They have estimated the capital charges for jetties and for loading equipment, finance charges, the cost of building wagons, and so on. My information is that they estimate that operating with a central jetty the work of discharging for the three major steelworks of South Wales could be handled by a fleet of 1,000 wagons of 22½ tons capacity moving ore in 2,000 ton trains. No major alteration would be necessary to either the signalling or track system. This in itself is bound to result in a saving of several shillings a ton.
Although I have met with much opposition, and although many people seem to think that this is fanciful, I hope that the facts which I am giving will convince them as it is convincing an increasing number of people in South Wales, that it is wrong that we should be asked to give assent to a Bill of this sort and for work to go ahead on a jetty or a dock of this kind without a central investigation being carried out. The more the figures are examined, the more confident I am that people will be converted to the idea of a central jetty, if found to be feasible.
My fear is that if the Bill goes through, the Iron and Steel Board, which has not proved itself very effective in either thinking on a big scale or safeguarding the public interest, will succumb to pressure from the Steel Company of Wales to go ahead with the project as passed

by Parliament. Everybody knows that the Port Talbot docks are not large enough.
Everybody knows that they can take ships only up to 10,000 tons and that they need much larger ships. If the Bill goes through there will be pressure by the Steel Company of Wales upon the Iron and Steel Board to say, "Let us go ahead; do not let us hold it up any longer." We may be committing ourselves by so doing, because the work has not been done at an earlier stage, to a gross waste of public resources and public funds. I should like to raise a question with the Minister about the Bill itself.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Has the hon. Gentleman considered the alternative that, if this Bill is delayed and the decision is not to have one point but to have more than one, there will be no statutory powers under which they can be created for at least another 12 months?

Mr. Callaghan: I have considered that point, and I am sure that the Minister will speak about it. I think that the answer is that the Harbours Bill, although it will mean a substantial period of time in negotiation—there is no doubt about that—will mean that the promoters of this Bill will not have to bring forward another Private Bill in 12 months' time. It would be possible for the Minister, by Order, which he would have to lay before the House, to get assent from the House for a project of this nature going through. I am sure that the Minister will give us his views about that.
I think that he will say, "Let the Bill go through", for the very reason that the hon. Gentleman has given. That does not destroy the main point. Is it right that we should be committed to an expenditure of upwards of £40 million for the sake of six months? I do not think that it is right. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary: is this Bill merely permissive or do Ministers have the last word even when the Bill has gone through? If the Minister has the last word, I think that there is some prospect that we might get the examination of a central project, which we should have had before now.
I asked the Parliamentary Secretary also if he would give a full statement to the House of the powers, which are sometimes overlapping, of the Iron and Steel Board to permit a project to go ahead, of the National Ports Council and of the Minister of Transport himself. Specifically, could the British Transport Docks Board proceed, once it got this Bill, even if the Minister disagreed? That is a vital question. I must press this question because the other Bill, which is now before another place, makes provision in an amended form—I believe the Amendment was put forward by the Minister of Transport—for Ministerial approval to be given before any of the works authorised by the Bill are carried out. Can I have a similar assurance in respect of this Bill? If it is right that in the case of Richard Thomas and Baldwins' project Ministerial permission is necessary, then I believe that it would be right in the case of this Bill, if in fact the powers asked for do not already give the Minister that responsibility.
The Minister of Power informed me on 9th April that the National Ports Council had been asked for its advice and that the Iron and Steel Board was helping the Council in its examination. I am ready to be impressed by that statement provided I can be sure, what I am not sure about now, that such an examination of a centralised scheme would be impartial and irrespective of the fact that a considerable amount of work has already been done on the central projects. I had to say this because so far the work has been done in the wrong order, and individual projects have been allowed to go ahead in advance of central examination and a decision on the central principle.
I ask these specific questions about what the National Ports Council will do. Will it, before tendering its advice, make a survey of the feasibility and the economies to be secured by the unification of imports of iron ore?
Secondly, if so, will it consider all the ports that can provide such facilities and not merely the two for which individual projects have been already put forward and are before either this House or another place, namely, Port Talbot and Newport?
Thirdly, will it seek the opinion of outside consultants to assist in its consideration? I name, for example, especially those consultants, Messrs. Wallace Evans and Partners, who produced the first published figures of the economies to be secured by centralisation, and, as far as I know, were the first people publicly to put up a scheme of this sort.
Fourthly, will the Ports Council associate the railways directly with the study that it is about to make in view of the railways fixed opinion and their own researches which show that they could handle this job of moving the ore efficiently, more competitively and more cheaply?
Fifthly, would the Minister ask the Ports Council to support the advice it will give him with the detailed facts on which its conclusions are based? Lastly, I ask the Minister if he would undertake to publish the advice that it gives, together with the supporting facts, so that public opinion in South Wales can be fully assured that whatever decision or whatever advice it offers is soundly based?
I am afraid that nothing that the Minister can say tonight will alter my opinion that this Bill and its companion have been brought forward in the wrong way at the wrong time. Nevertheless, I realise, in answer to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson), the cost to the promoters of such a Bill and I hope that I have made it clear that my comments and opposition are not merely factious or frivolous. They are designed to ensure the best value for the nation of the expenditure of an ultimate total of some £40 million. My attitude to this Bill with be influenced by the answers that the Minister can give to the questions that I have put to him. Basically it is the concern of the House and the Government, not with the rival interests of one port or another but with the prosperity of the industry as a whole. I am satisfied that the basic prosperity of the industry as a whole has not been the starting point of either of the two Bills and certainly not of this Bill.
It is ironic that by pursuing their own individual ends as they are at the moment the steel companies may end up by finding themselves financially worse off than they would be if they had agreed to unification. I do not know why they have not agreed to unification


and I do not know whether they would still be prepared to agree to unification. I do not know whether the Minister would believe it right to press them to do so if they disagreed. I cannot myself believe that a Bill that is put forward in this way should receive the consent of the House unless we have the most explicit assurances from the Minister that the basic and fundamental principle of whether there should be unification and centralisation of the means of importing will be impartially considered and the answers brought before the House, so that we can know what are the underlying facts.
I apologise for speaking so long, but this is a very major project in the future life of the steel industry of South Wales. It is something in which the difference of several shillings per ton on landing ore could make a difference to the competitiveness of South Wales steel and therefore all of us have a duty to ensure that this money, if it is to be spent, is properly spent and to the best advantage of South Wales and of the steel industry.

7.39 p.m

Mr. John Morris: My first wish is to declare to the House what it is obviously well aware of, and that is my own personal constituency interest. I think that the Bill affects my constituency more directly than any other. I think that my hon. Friends will confirm that in the discussions which have been taken elsewhere before tonight I have not at any time sought to advance a purely constituency point of view. I have sought to the best of my ability to look at the needs of the whole of South Wales and of the whole of the iron and steel industry. It is in that way that I propose to approach the Bill and the Amendment tonight.
As we have been told by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East, there are two Bills now before Parliament. One is the Bill that we are dealing with tonight and the other the Welsh Shipping Agency Bill, the one affecting Newport, which is now before another place. In recent years and months, in particular, we have had a multiplicity of schemes for the import of iron ore to South Wales. These schemes have been breeding like rabbits. We have had either a new scheme or variations of existing ones.

At the last count, there were 12 or 13 schemes or variations of schemes for the import of iron ore.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East that it is a tragedy that these two Bills are brought before Parliament at this moment. I have gone into the matter fairly thoroughly, but nobody has been able to assure me that there has been the adequate discussion which we should have liked between the two major steel companies involved, the Steel Company of Wales and Richard Thomas and Baldwins. I further agree that the impression given to Parliament and to the general public is that each and every one has been going his own way and that there has been a lack of consultation. If there has been consultation, I will be glad to hear of it. I will be glad to have it confirmed that there has been constant review and discussion between the two major companies concerned.
In recent years, the steel industry in South Wales has been transformed. It has been developed in my constituency and in recent years it has been developed at Newport. There is a lesser proportion, both actual and potential, in the constituency of my hon. Friend. It is said that we are faced tonight with an issue involving one part of the steel industry without any indication that there has been the thorough-going inquiry which we should have had in the first instance. The very fact of the lack of co-operation and of co-ordination between the: two sectors of the steel industry is the classic argument for bringing the whole of the steel industry into public ownership.
Certainly, if there was any meaning in the much-vaunted objects of the Iron and Steel Board, when it was brought into being by the Government in 1953, if there was any meaning in its supervisory powers, one might have expected the Board to be much more diligent and to present a case for a properly integrated, comprehensive scheme for the whole of South Wales.
I am far from happy with the rôle that the Board has played and with the rôle of the Minister of Power. The right hon. Gentleman is ultimately responsible for the Board, but he is not here tonight. No one is present from the Ministry of Power. I regard this as scandalous when


a Minister of the Crown is directly responsible for the steel industry and I remember the much-vaunted claims for the Iron and Steel Act, 1953, that were made by the Government, who said that there would be intervention and supervision, with the partnership of capitalism and the Government. The whole thing has come to nought because there does not seem to be any interest by anyone from the Ministry of Power in this Bill, which is important for the whole of South Wales.
I pay tribute to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport. When I wound up the last major debate on the steel industry, even though it was a Ministry of Power debate, the hon. and gallant Gentleman came to listen to part of that debate, and I pay tribute to him for being here tonight. One might, however, have expected the Minister of Power in return to come here tonight to take an interest in our proceedings. I regard his absence as scandalous. One must be realistic, because, as I visualise the scene—I do not wish to be controversial, even though the statement in itself will be controversial—there is a good chance, some would say a high chance, of the whole of the steel industry being in public ownership within 12 months or so.
I did not quite follow my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East when he was afraid that S.C.O.W. would be able to bring pressure upon the Iron and Steel Board to implement what Parliament had allowed. I do not visualise that there will be any independent, organised S.C.O.W. in 12 months' time. It will certainly be S.C.O.W., but it will be owned by the nation. I do not anticipate, therefore, as my hon. Friend seems, perhaps unwittingly, to have suggested, some independent kind of pressure in that way. I am sure that my hon. Friend did not mean to forecast anything that is contrary to what we all hope for.

Mr. Callaghan: The Bill can be through within a matter of weeks. Then, I expect, the pressure would start, if I am right about this and Ministerial sanction is not needed. If Ministerial permission is needed, the pressure would still be there, but, at least, there would

be a buffer. This could happen in six weeks' time.

Mr. Morris: I am obliged. I will return presently to what I understand to be the Minister's powers under the Transport Act, 1962.
From the nation's viewpoint it would be scandalous if, in the dying days of the present Administration, a decision were taken, either as part of election gimmickry or some kind of creation of an electoral image of the Government trying to do something, which we should regret in the near future. I agree that before any step is taken to implement the Bill or the Welsh Shipping Agency Bill, there should be a full and thorough inquiry into all the reasonable and practicable schemes for South Wales. At the end of the day, after that inquiry had been held, there should be a report to the Minister, who, I hope, would be able to tell the House what had been the fruits of his inquiry.
I do not know whether there is a real cause for alarm. My hon. Friend had his answer from the Minister of Power the other day. A matter of only months ago, I went to see Lord Rochdale to satisfy myself about the rôle he was playing and the rôle that he hoped the National Ports Council would play. I was told—and this confirms what my hon. Friend has said to the House—that the National Ports Council had been requested by the Ministry of Transport to conduct an inquiry, certainly to collect the data for an inquiry, and that there would be a recommendation from it to the Minister in a matter of months as opposed to years.
I presume that the Iron and Steel Board would be consulted by the National Ports Council. The pattern might be followed of what happened when a working party was set up by the Iron and Steel Board to consider the feasibility of the localised issue of the project for Newport. If that was done for Newport, obviously it should be done for the whole of South Wales. I expect that the machinery for undertaking this necessary inquiry has already been started.
Having said all that, having deplored the introduction of the Bill into the House at this time, we must look at things, not as they might have been, but


as they are and look at the Bill as it is. Naturally, my constituency is anxious that if an iron ore port is built, it should be built at Port Talbot. That is the view of my local authority and of the trade unions concerned, the Transport and General Workers' Union and the National Union of Railwaymen. They are anxious that if a decision ultimately is taken in favour of Port Talbot, there should be no undue delay. That is the main reason why I suggest that at the end of this debate, if we have the proper assurances from the Minister, we should pass the Bill.
Over the years, there has been great and urgent need for adequate ports for iron ore in South Wales. This was referred to at length in our last debate on steel in July, 1962, when I quoted the statement made by Mr. W. N. Cartwright, managing director, as he then was, of the Steel Company of Wales, who drew attention to the urgent needs for adequate ore landing facilities in the whole of the country and in South Wales in particular. He said:
The United Kingdom has fallen steadily behind the other steel making countries in the world in the use of big ships almost entirely due to the fact that they simply cannot be handled in any of the major British ports.
He went on to say:
So long as the materials of the steel industry and its products are carried in little ships, little wagons and small trains then it will be that much more difficult for the industry to survive.
That was the situation in July, 1962.

Mr. Callaghan: And before.

Mr. Morris: That was the situation many years before. Nothing has been done. No positive step has been taken. We have had the denationalisation of the steel industry since 1953 and it can hardly he a feather in the cap of either the Government or the industry that there has been a complete lack of positive steps to remove what must undoubtedly be a great handicap upon the steel industry: its inability to be competitive in this issue with other countries.
I do not wish to quote what I have said on a previous occasion, but we see in the remainder of the world great developments—in Germany, in Bremerhaven, in Japan—with facilities not merely for 10,000-ton ships, which could be berthed in Port Talbot and in good

time, but for ships of 45,000 and 60,000 tons, and, indeed, more than that. The Rochdale Committee came down very firmly that the optimum size of ship for Britain was at least in the region of 35,000 tons, and its Report may well be out of date on that issue, considering the developments introduced in other parts of the world, by comparison with which the position in South Wales and in Port Talbot is worse than in any other part of the world.
That is pinpointed by the Rochdale Committee and Reports of the Board over many years, while the paramount interest of the steel industry is that it should be competitive with the steel industry in the remainder of the world. That does not mean, incidentally, competition within the steel industry in this country, having regard to the statement of the chairman of Dorman Long recently that competition should not be an incentive to the steel industry in this country.
The Bill is promoted by a nationalised industry, and, as I understand the position, it was given the permission of the Minister to go on with it with the following safeguards, first, that it was merely an enabling Bill, and secondly, that the Minister was not committed on the question whether the work should be carried out. It is merely a permissive Bill, and that disposes of some of the fears of my hon. Friend. The Minister certainly has the last word—I can be corrected if I am wrong on this—because the 1962 Act ensured that before any capital expenditure on this took place the Minister's permission must be sought. That is the difference, I concede immediately, between this Bill and the Welsh Shipping Agency Bill. An Amendment has been made to that Bill to provide for that kind of provision which, obviously, is so necessary. That kind of Amendment is not necessary here, because the Minister already has supervisory powers under the 1962 Act.
I believe, therefore, that there are sufficient and adequate safeguards. There is, first, the control of the 1962 Act. There is, secondly, the nature of the permission given by the Minister. Then there is, thirdly, the inquiry already going on by the National Ports Council. I hope that the Board wilt be closely associated with that inquiry.
Before coming to this debate I read the report of the Minister of Transport on the Bill. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to repeat tonight this finding by the Minister:
While the present scheme is technically satisfactory, he is not yet able to say whether in his opinion it is the best solution in the general context of the arrangements for importing iron ore into South Wales. Nevertheless he thinks it desirable that the necessary powers should be obtained by the Docks Board to ensure that should approval be given to the Board to proceed with the scheme there would be no delay occasioned by the need to obtain such powers.
That is really the crux of the issue which is facing us tonight. If we are suggesting that there is a need for larger iron ore ports in South Wales—and there is no argument on that issue—if we compare conditions here with those in other countries: if we are satisfied that no actual work will be done to implement the Bill till there has been full inquiry to find what is the best solution for the whole of South Wales; and having regard to the fact that only good can flow from this Bill in that it is an enabling and permissive Bill and not a mandatory one; then, if the Minister eventually decides that Port Talbot is not the best one, and that it should not proceed, and that there should be some work done at Newport, or a centralised scheme at Newport or a centralised scheme at Cardiff or elsewhere, then this Bill undoubtedly, having regard to the safeguards which are abundant in the Bill and in the other provisions, will become a dead letter.
Of course, a centralised scheme does not of necessity mean a central scheme at Cardiff. It is a very different matter, having a centralised port for the whole of South Wales, whether it be at Milford, or Port Talbot, or Cardiff, or Newport, or anywhere else. That point should be made abundantly clear. There is a difference between a centralised scheme and a central scheme.
But if the Minister decides that Port Talbot should be proceeded with, either as one of the schemes for South Wales, or as the only scheme for South Wales, possibly even a larger one, then all the delay which would be occasioned by going through the whole of the procedure under order under the Harbours

Bill will be saved. Also, the Docks Board and the steel company have spent a great deal of money in experimentation and trials which have been carried out, and an immense amount of negotiation has gone on, I believe, between the promoters and the private interests. All that could be saved.
The passing of the Bill does not mean, I understand, that a decision has been taken. That is the assurance we want tonight, that the passing of the Bill does not mean a decision has been taken. But one of the facilities will be Port Talbot. Rejecting the Bill means that any future development for South Wales, including and involving Port Talbot, must be done by order under the Harbours Bill, and that, as I have said, will take time. If we accept that the need for adequate iron ore ports is urgent in South Wales, and if we accept that the prosperity of South Wales largely depends on ensuring that the steel industry is competitive there, and that that means avoiding delay, then I ask the House to pass this Bill, to ensure that after a decision is taken in Port Talbot any undue delay may thereby be avoided.

7.57 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Probert: I have no constituency interest in this Bill. I say that in no way critically of my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and Aberavon (Mr. J. Morris). I feel that they showed great respect for this House in so far as they expressed their views in a national way, and I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon, who represents Port Talbot, and who has put his case so forcefully, that he has done it in the national interest and not merely in his own constituency interests. That is a very difficult thing to do, but he has done it very well indeed, if I may say so.
I should like to express a view which, to me, is rather a matter of principle. Should we under a Private Bill give rights and privileges which supersede those in a Public Bill, or pass a Private Bill when there is a Measure only recently passed by the House or before the House? I wonder, therefore, whether the national interest is best served by the promotion of this Bill. I


know that there is always a conflict in hon. Members' minds over this issue.
For the last few weeks I have been sitting upstairs listening to the discussions on a Private Bill and the arguments advanced by most eminent counsel for and against, and throughout the whole of the proceedings I have had the continuously nagging thought in my mind, whether the interests of the promoters and of those petitioning against the Bill would not best be served by a Government Measure. I believe, therefore, that when there is recent legislation—legislation passed so recently as not to be out of date, one infers—and when there is impending Government legislation, it is a serious consideration whether a Private Bill should not be superseded by Government proposals.
There is the important point about time, which was stressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East and the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson), who interrupted him. I agree that it is a very important consideration. In accepting the necessity to expedite matters, are we not in danger of granting powers to the promoters which they would not be given in a public Measure? Are we not in danger also of not giving to the public the same rights of appeal that they would be given in a public Measure?
It may be argued that the Minister's rights and obligations under the Harbours Bill now going through the House of Lords will not be by-passed by any proposals in this Bill and that the Harbours Bill will assure safeguards against anything which may be against the public interest under this Bill as time goes by. It is argued that the Minister can still decide, in accordance with the Harbours Bill, where any harbour or works should be constructed.
But if this Bill allowing works proposed by the British Transport Docks Board goes through, is the Minister likely to change his mind about its proposals? If the Bill is passed and its proposals are therefore given a green light by the House, the Minister will have to take that into consideration. The danger then will be that, whatever the public interest, he will be more amenable to persuasion than he would have been if the Bill had not been approved. I know that I am repeat-

ing myself, but I want to emphasise my concern that private legislation should be introduced to deal with a subject which is being dealt with by current Government legislation.
The Rochdale Report in paragraph 151 said:
We recommend that a National Ports Authority should be established with well-defined non-operational responsibilities. Its special task would be to safeguard the national, as well as the local, interest in port development… Its most important duties would be to exercise a positive control over capital investment…
The Government, under the Harbours Bill, propose to set up such a National Ports Council and vest it with authority. If we pass this Bill, will we not be in danger of abrogating those powers? What chance will the new National Ports Council have of exercising its functions in dealing with these large proposals for South Wales, which are of national as well as local interest? What are the financial implications? Will the finances be subject to the scrutiny of the Ports Council or the Minister? The 1962 Act gives the Minister safeguards in respect of the country's assets in this regard, but I would like to consider them more closely now.
What disturbs me, whenever we have a Private Bill currently with a public Measure before the House dealing with much the same subject, is what rights the public will have and whether those rights will be equal to those allowed under the Government proposals. I would be out of order to discuss those proposals, but they are in our minds. These are some of the considerations which impel me to view with some doubt, if not trepidation, the passage of the Bill. I believe that the proposals in, it can be achieved better in the Harbours Bill or in any public Bill and—more important—that they can be achieved much better from the public's point of view and for the safeguarding of the public interest.
We must not forget that Section 5 of the Iron and Steel Act, 1953, obliges the Iron and Steel Board to consult iron and steel producers and others about the provision of production facilities. Section 5 explicitly states that regard shall be given to the national interest. Are the promoters of the Bill looking at this from the point of view of the national interest, or, as I suspect, purely as a sectional interest?
Paragraph 115 of the Annual Report of the Iron and Steel Board, 1962, stated that the Rochdale Committee
…also recommended that the Iron and steel industry should as soon as possible discuss with the proposed central body (the National Ports Council), the Iron and Steel Board and the port authorities concerned the technical and financial details of a programme for developing ore-terminals.
How can these discussions take place if this Bill goes through?

Mr. J. Morrison: Will my hon. Friend read the next sentence?

Mr. Probert: I will. It is:
The Board welcome this recommendation but consider that the discussion recommended should not be allowed to delay the improvements in South Wales where, as the Committee agreed, the position is particularly difficult.
I suggest that the Rochdale Committee was far more impartial in this than the Board and it recommended that discussion should take place with the National Ports Council. How can such discussions, which would be in the national interest, take place properly if this Bill is approved? The national interest is not being safeguarded here and that is why I must seriously consider what the Minister says before I can agree to give approval to the Bill.

8.7 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I have no constituency interest in South Wales, nor have I spoken to the British Transport Docks Board or the steel companies about this matter. But for 20 years I served in the legal department of the Great Western Railway. I know the district well and have had some experience of preparing Measures of this sort. I would add briefly to the interjection I made in the speech of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan).
I said that I thought that to defer the Bill now would mean that there might be some delay in carrying out these works but that it would not be a matter for South Wales alone. The Bill deals with a considerable number of other matters, although these are perhaps not so important. The hon. Members concerned with these other proposals are not present and are evidently satisfied with them. There are proposals dealing with King's Lynn, Kingston-upon-Hull

and Immingham and a number of other provisions. It would be a very serious matter if delay were caused in carrying out these other works simply because there was an argument going on as to whether there should be one port of entry for iron ore in South Wales or more than one.
The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. J. Morris) made what I thought was a convincing speech for the Bill and for dealing later with the question whether there should be one port of entry or three. Thus, as I say, if we deferred the Bill not only would we cause delay in South Wales, but also delay, inconvenience and expense to the Docks Board in having prepared the Bill only to be frustrated merely because of the dispute over whether there should be one port or three in South Wales.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. Leo Abse: I appreciate the natural concern of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) that there should not be expense and delay, but I am profoundly concerned that there should not be promoted by a nationalised industry a Bill which, in terms, makes that industry a creature of private interest.
Every hon. Member from Wales owes a considerable debt to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) for having taken the initiative in moving the Amendment and allowing us to have a debate of this kind. If he had not done so, the complete lack of prescience which has been shown by the steel interests in Wales would never have been understood or known, and the possibility of having a system to give reduced costs in the national interests would never have even begun to be investigated.
I ask myself why it is that it should have been left to the zeal and enterprise of an individual hon. Member to go into a matter which one would have thought to have been abundantly clearly a rôle of, above everybody else in the context of the Bill, the Steel Company of Wales. Anyone knows that before it is decided to expend tens of millions of pounds, a preliminary investigation is made to see whether there is some other method, some other technique, than that which may just happen to suit a particular interest. We know what


the reason is. We know quite well that if the steel industry in Wales had been publicly owned, instead of being, as at Port Talbot, in the hands of a privately owned concern, the national interest would have been bound to be considered, because there would not have been concern for private profit at one place.
Therefore, I do not take lightly the demands which my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East has made when saying that before approving the Bill he would require specific assurances, for we are on inquiry. I represent a constituency which is not a port, of course, but hundreds of people in Llanwern works may be my constituents. All Wales is now inextricably involved in the future of the steel industry and there is no question of constituency interests. The issue is how we can be assured that we have a steel industry which can import ore at the cheapest price and export in a competitive world.
Knowing that there are predatory fingers about, and that the Steel Company of Wales is spending thousands of pounds to prevent the industry from becoming publicly owned, we are suspicious when we find that there have not been exhaustive inquiries which any layman outside the steel industry would know ought to have been made. We do not believe that the Steel Company of Wales is so naïve or unsophisticated as not to have made inquiries of this kind if it were not that it was concerned solely with profit and not with the national interest.

Mr. David Webster: Is not the hon. Member aware that in another place there is another Bill, promoted by a nationalised steel company, in connection with which there has been a considerable lack of inquiry as to the amenities on the other side of the Bristol Channel?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): Order. We are in some danger of allowing the debate to go too wide. We cannot discuss another Bill which is in another place. Nor can we discuss the issue of nationalisation. We must keep the discussion to the methods of the importation of iron ore which are mentioned in the Bill.

Mr. Abse: It is precisely because we have a privately owned concern which is seeking its own interests that we have before us a Bill which clearly reveals a lack of inquiry into the basic needs of the steel industry of Wales.

Mr. G. Wilson: The Bill is being promoted not by a private concern, but by the British Transport Docks Board.

Mr. Abse: As I said at the beginning of my speech, I was concerned that we should not have a Bill which is supported by a nationalised industry in terms which made it a creature of private profit. I repeat that when my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East specifically asks for assurances from the National Ports Council, I have no doubt that he is concerned with the inquiries which could have been made by the Council and is echoing the opinion of the overwhelming number of constituency Members from Wales.
The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. J. Morris) has stated that he has had a private assurance that it is the intention of the National Ports Council to collect data. However, I find that quite inadequate. I want much more than that, and I am sure that most Welsh Members want more than that, too.

Mr. J. Morris: I went further than that. I said that it had already proceeded to collect data, but had been asked by the Minister of Transport to conduct an inquiry. That was confirmed by an Answer given by the Minister of Power and quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) at the beginning of his speech.

Mr. Callaghan: What he said was that he had asked the National Ports Council for advice; but what information it would collect before giving that advice I have no idea.

Mr. Abse: That is very much the issue. We want to know what type of survey is to be made. As has been said, we want to know whether the opinion of outside consultants is to be considered. We do not know much about the rôle of the National Ports Council. It is a somewhat inchoate concern at the moment, in an embryonic condition.
Not knowing how it will work, we have to have very specific assurances


as to the nature of the inquiry that is to be conducted before we can feel happy about withdrawing our opposition to the Bill. I trust that we shall be told whether it is intended within such an inquiry to seek outside opinion. If there is to be such an inquiry by the National Ports Council, what is to be the relationship between the Council and the Iron and Steel Board, which has so miserably failed in this way?
I echo the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon, that it is abundantly clear that, despite its alleged powers of supervision, the Iron and Steel Board has demonstrated in this respect how utterly inadequate it is to have an iron and steel board which does not wholly come under the aegis of a publicly controlled industry.
Can we have the assurance for which we have specifically asked, that no decision will be made before all the material which may be collected is publicly known? We do not want any clandestine work. Because we are so much on inquiry and because we are suspicious of some of the motives of those who are trying to use this method in Port Talbot for importing ore, it is necessary that the issue which should be publicly canvassed. I therefore support the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East that we should have all the information which may be collected by such an inquiry known and specific reasons for recommendations equally known, so that Wales may know.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East has spoken not for his own constituency, but for Wales, and we have been very fortunate that we have had such a probing inquiry already conducted in the House. It is lamentable that such inquiries were not made long before the Bill reached Parliament.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. Raymond Gower: I think that the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), without desiring to be so, was somewhat unfair to the promoters of the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) pointed out, the Bill is being promoted by the British Transport Docks Board. The hon. Gentleman, and the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert), insinuated

that this Bill reflected private interests, but they may like to reflect that the British Transport Docks Board owns not only the docks at Port Talbot but all the docks along the south-west seaboard, and that in the very nature of things the Board has no predilection for one particular port. I imagine that the Board would accept improvements to any of the docks which it owns. I do not, therefore, think that we should attribute to the Board anything but the highest of motives.
The two major steelworks concerned are sited at Port Talbot and Newport. It must be apparent to everyone here that, after the most exhaustive inquiries, a decision may be taken that an extension is required at Port Talbot. For that reason alone I think that there is a strong case for granting the Board the powers contained in the Bill.
The hon. Member for Pontypool is not correct in saying that this debate was possible only because his hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) tabled an Amendment to the Bill. On the Second Reading of a Bill of this kind it is possible to debate in some detail a matter of this importance.

Mr. Callaghan: This is not a Second Reading debate.

Mr. Gower: When a Bill is considered in this way, the meat of the Bill obviously has to be debated at considerable length.
We know that a good deal of this investigation is being undertaken.

Mr. Callaghan: Do we?

Mr. Gower: The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. J. Morris) intimated that the National Ports Council had been asked to advise on this point. That is one example of the kind of investigation which is taking place.

Mr. Callaghan: I realise that the hon. Gentleman is trying to state the present position. I beg him to understand that no undertaking at all has been given that there will be consideration of a plan for the centralised importation and distribution of iron ore into South Wales. If such a promise were publicly given and it was partially and faithfully carried out, my criticism of the Bill then would be that it has been brought forward too soon. But we are not at that stage


yet, and if the hon. Gentleman would support us by saying that the Minister should undertake to have an impartial examination carried out we should make progress.

Mr. Gower: I am not suggesting that such an investigation should not take place, but I am suggesting that while we are considering that point we should not withhold the powers contained in the Bill. In other words, we should not reject the Bill today. Rather, we should grant the statutory powers contained in the Bill and then obtain all the information that we can. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Power said that he has asked the Council to advise on the comparative advantages of the two methods.

Mr. Callaghan: The Minister said that he was asking the Council to advise on this matter. It may be that he has done so, I do not know. He has not said that he is asking the Council to consider one case against the other. If he has done that, we are making progress.
I have not suggested that we should reject the Bill. I want to hear what the Parliamentary Secretary has to say about it before making up my mind, because if I receive an undertaking that there will be a fair and impartial examination—which should have been carried out before the Bill was put forward—subject to a few safeguards, we might be able to make progress.

Mr. Gower: I am sure that the whole House will want to hear what my hon. and gallant Friend has to say, but I still think that we should allow the Bill to go through.

Mr. Brian O'Malley: The hon. Gentleman says that we should allow the Bill to go through. Am I right in assuming that the hon. Gentleman is of the opinion that the scheme which would result from the Bill should not be carried out until such time as the Minister has received the results of a complete examination of the respective arguments and merits of a centralised ore terminal, or one port or two ports?

Mr. Gower: As I understand it, the powers given in the Bill are largely permissive. Further information would be required before the work could proceed. I imagine that that is the

point about which the hon. Gentleman is concerned. There will be other opportunities for raising this matter.

Mr. Abse: We do not know what the hon. Gentleman wants. Does he want an inquiry or not? Is he prepared to give blanket powers to the Minister and merely ask that there should be an inquiry, or does he want a specific assurance that there will be an inquiry on the terms suggested by my hon. Friend?

Mr. Gower: I am not making it a condition for passing the Bill that my hon. and gallant Friend should give an assurance that there will be an inquiry. I am saying that before the powers given in the Bill are implemented we should press for such an inquiry.
The ports of South Wales are in the ownership of a nationalised body. It would be most unfortunate if we gave the impression that there was something ignoble in the motives of the promoters of the Bill. I hope that the hon. Gentleman did not have that in mind when he made his statement.

8.27 p.m.

Sir Frank Soskice: I have a strong constituency interest in this matter, although it is perhaps not quite geographical1y accurate to say that Llanwern is in Newport. Speaking as the Member for Newport, we would like the import of iron ore into Llanwern to be as closely centred on Newport as possible, but, of course, national considerations and general public interest must be the predominant and, indeed, the determining factor as to the ultimate scheme which is adopted.
I think the House should recognise that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) has rendered a valuable service by taking steps to initiate this debate. He put his own approach to the problem in his usual clear and pithy way, and I think that he has placed the problem clearly before us.
I do not want to widen the scope of the debate, but the Welsh Shipping Agency Bill has been referred to many times during the debate, and my hon. Friend suggested that there should be a comprehensive review, from the national point of view, of both Bills. It is for that reason that I ask permission to say one or two words in support of my hon.


Friend's argument from the point of view of the Newport end of the importation of iron ore.
I am concerned, as my hon. Friend is, that this whole question of the import of iron ore into South Wales should be looked at far more closely than has been the case so far before steps are taken to implement the powers contained either in the Bill under discussion or in the other Bill to which I have referred.
I wish to raise one or two points on matters which seem to me and to my constituents to require further consideration. The Docks Board has for some time been carrying out dredging experiments on a large scale. Alternative proposals, which merit equal consideration and may be found to be extremely valuable as a solution to the problem, might emerge from these investigations. If the National Ports Council is to advise the Minister—and my information is that it is now engaged upon a consideration of the whole question—it surely should have before it the full results at least of those dredging experiments. It should be in a position to weigh alternative proposals, one against the other, in full knowledge of all the considerations involved.
In seeking to reinforce the argument presented by my hon. Friend, I would point out that there is another field in which further inquiry is urgently needed, and that the matter which is now under discussion should not be rushed through until all relevant considerations have been fully borne in mind. Considering the powers which will be conferred by the Welsh Shipping Agency Bill, if it passes into law, we must remember that we do not know the purpose for which the jetty will be used. We are discussing a total public expenditure in the realm of £30 million or £40 million, of which the cost of the jetty proposed by the Welsh Shipping Agency Bill will account for £18 million. That is a large sum of public money.
I put forward this question for urgent consideration. It would be a major waste of public money if the jetty were to be used for purposes for which adequate facilities already exist at Newport Docks, especially since they have been improved in recent years through a considerable expenditure of public money.
I want to know whether the jetty will be used simply for the import of iron ore and—as I understand it—oil products, or for other purposes as well. At the moment the Welsh Shipping Agency Bill contains no indication of the purpose for which the jetty will be used.
I put that forward as a matter which needs further consideration before any final decisions are taken as to the general complex of the importation of iron ore into the steel works of South Wales. I would hope that before sanctioning any work under the Bill the Minister would be careful to make full use of the powers that he will have, if the Bill becomes law, to prevent works being started until he has given his consent to the carrying out of those works.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I am anxious to give him as much indulgence as I can, but it is out of order to ask detailed questions about the Welsh Shipping Agency Bill in a discussion on the Bill that is before us. He can use illustrations in relation to that Bill, but I would be stretching the rules of order too far if I allowed him to seek specific information about the Welsh Agency Shipping Bill on these proceedings.

Sir F. Soskice: I will at once obey your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. You have already been extremely indulgent to me. I am grateful to you for having allowed me to go as far as I have.
Having said that, I come to a dead stop. I shall say no more upon that topic. What I have said with your permission has been said in order to supplement the argument put forward so cogently by my hon. Friend, and to throw forward a suggestion as to an area in which further inquiries on the lines that my hon. Friend has suggested might proceed. I am grateful to you for having allowed me to deal with that aspect of the problem.

8.34 p.m.

Mr. David Webster: I agree with every word said by the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) and with many of those that he did not say. Like him, I feel that when we have a potential


expenditure of £30 million of public money, £18 million of which is in relation to the Spencer Works and £12 million in respect of other projects, the most careful consideration is needed. If I may descant for a moment about the beauties of Newport, I would point out that it contains a dock, which was built in about 1914, with a 1,000 ft. entry lock. There have been few docks with entry locks of a better capacity. The handicap is that the dock has a limited sill capacity, so that only two smaller vessels can get in, as opposed to one super oil carrier.
I hate the thought of a jetty going across the Bristol channel. I agree that there is considerable need for further research. My concern is that we cannot tell to what extent the construction of this dock, at an expenditure of £18 million, will deflect the major currents in the Bristol Channel. We cannot tell whether they will go up to Cardiff or come town to Weston-super-Mare and distort the new effluent outfall that we have built and carry the effluent back on to the beach, and in 20 years' time, perhaps, gouge out the beach altogether, thereby completely altering the character of my constituency in a way that I would deplore. It is a beautiful beach.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Does not my hon. Friend concede the fact that many hon. Members who represent adjacent constituencies are equally interested in the question of amenity, but that this is not a matter on which these sentiments should be expressed and that they would be better expressed on another occasion, on a more appropriate Bill?

Mr. Webster: I was not sure whether my hon. Friend said "sentiments" or "sediments". As a former member of the Estimates Committee I am concerned at the fact that a great deal of the public money is at risk here. I do not want to defer the whole Bill, but I would like to defer this part, so that the most thorough consideration could be given to the question of the extent to which these jetties will change the flow of the river, and whether the dredging of Newport Harbour might not make it capable of taking a 30,000-tonner.

Mr. J. Morris: On a point of order. I find difficulty in reconciling the hon.

Member's remarks with the Bill. It has nothing to do with Newport, with the hon. Member's constituency or with any jetties. The hon. Member is in a dream.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have been listening to the hon. Member. It is a little difficult, when three people try to interrupt him at the same time. I will stop him if necessary.

Mr. Webster: I thank you for stopping me when I get out of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Newport that this matter requires the most thorough discussion. Considerable problems arise, and I urge that they should be given the most thorough consideration.

8.39 p.m.

Mr. Neil McBride: Having listened to the impressive speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), Aberavon (Mr. Morris) and Aberdare (Mr. Probert), I agree that this is a matter of national as well as of local importance to Wales, because in this age of mammoth ore carriers the decision—if it is made—to centralise the discharge of iron ore in South Wales will determine Wales's share in the national economy, and it must be our purpose as Welsh hon. Members to increase that share.
The question of iron ore imports and their discharge, while of great importance, also affects the import of other goods and the export of a general range of manfactured goods—all matters contingent upon what is contained in the Bill. What I say flows from the proposals in the Bill affecting the steel industry, and I must declare a constituency interest, because it has been said—and I agree—that in these matters constituency interests and national interests of Wales are one and the same.
My constituency, in Swansea, is part of a great exporting sea port. In coal exports, we are forging ahead and are one of the three great exporting towns of the country. But any reorganisation of the discharge of iron ore might conceivably affect the general cargo position in South Wales ports, including Swansea. This is a matter of ever-increasing importance, and this view has been conveyed by the borough to the appropriate authority. Both trade unions and


the Chamber of Commerce are united in their view about the borough's position if there is any danger of dislocation in general cargo handling. A large proportion of general cargo in South Wales is handled in Swansea, and my constituents have made representations to me that I should ask, if there is any possibility of Port Talbot being chosen as the chief iron ore port, that the general cargo position as it affects the constituency should be considered by the Minister. This is very important to my constituents' employment prospects in the long term.
All I ask the Minister is to consider this in the context of the general problem. The only point which I have to place before him, as he considers what I have said is that in considering the preservation of the export position of the Borough of Swansea he should minimise any harmful effect which may be done to future employment prospects there.

8.43 p.m.

Mr. Brian O'Malley: I have no constituency interest to declare in this matter. My interest in the scheme which the Bill puts forward is that which I should have in any scheme which tended to remove the disadvantages under which British industry and trade are operating by comparison with the industry and trade of other nations because of the chronic inadequacy of docks and harbour facilities in this country.
I begin with a complaint. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) obviously had not read the Bill in detail because there were some gaps in his knowledge. I have read the Bill with great care, and there are considerable gaps in my knowledge, because it does not tell us very much. I went to the Private Bill Office this afternoon to see whether the Parliamentary agents had deposited any memorandum or useful information which hon. Members might see before they took part in the debates, for I knew that the Minister of Transport or the Parliamentary Secretary would not explain the position at the beginning of the debate but would wind up the debate. I was informed by the agents that the Minister of Transport or one of the Parliamentary Secretaries would defend

the Bill this evening. I think that there is positive neglect here, in the first place by the Parliamentary agents. Particularly since the Ministry is defending the Bill, it is a scandalous state of affairs that hon. Members are asked to discuss a Bill about which practically no details are known unless one has a close constituency interest in the matter.
I approach the Bill because I come from a steel constituency, and I am concerned that this country should be able to obtain iron ore from abroad as cheaply as possible. We should bear in mind that in the 1960s our imports of iron ore represent over one-quarter by weight of our total dry cargo imports. The Rochdale Committee estimated that, given a 3 per cent. growth rate, we would be importing about 45 million tons of iron ore by 1980; given a 4 per cent. growth rate, we would be importing 52 million tons of iron ore. Obviously any Bill or scheme which will affect the imports of iron ore into South Wales or elsewhere is worthy of detailed consideration.
The Bill refers to Port Talbot, which as long ago as 1958 handled over 16 per cent. of our total imports of iron ore, representing over 2 million tons. Later I shall ask the Parliamentary Secretary for the details of these schemes. Immingham also imports iron ore: 3·1 per cent. of our iron ore imports was handled by Immingham by 1961.
What is particularly disturbing about the Bill is that there is apparently no consultation or co-ordination between the various interests involved in the South Wales iron and steel trade. There is one scheme here costing £14 million. There is a scheme in another place which is to cost £18 million. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) put forward a proposition which should be generally acceptable to the House, that before we allow investment decisions of this kind to be made there should be a full-scale independent assessment of the economies of the respective schemes.
It is particularly important that we should examine, not only for the short-term, but for the longer term, the import facilities which we shall need if we are to be competitive in the coming years. We must look especially at Port Talbot, because this port is taking in year by year increasing quantities of iron ore.


Although the port is of such importance to the economic interests not only of the steel industry but of the whole country, it is limited to vessels of 10,000 dead weight tons. This situation was tolerable only as long ago as the pre-war period, when the bulk of our iron ore imports was shipped in tramp vessels of between 5,000 and 10,000 tons.
Throughout the whole of the 1950s the story of the British iron ore fleet and of port facilities for the import of iron ore is one of almost total neglect by both the industry and the Government of the day. While the Government, the Steel Board, and B.I.S.C. (Ore) Ltd., which is responsible for the import of iron ore into this country, saw foreign shippers and steel owners surging ahead in the type of ore carriers they were using, we were content to carry on with perhaps the worst iron ore importing facilities in the world. I would refer particularly to the facilities at Port Talbot.
The 1950s were a period of the steady growth of specialised fast bulk carriers to carry iron ore as well as other products. As long ago as 1955 one foreign shipyard was turning out a vessel—an ore carrier—of 60,000 dead weight tons. In the second half of the 1950s vessels with capacities of 30,000, 40,000 or 50,000 tons were constructed for the iron ore trade of other countries.
I want to be particularly careful. When inquiring into this matter, I tried not to put myself into the position where I would be saying that, for example, one Japanese shipyard had built a vessel of 50,000 tons, or that the Germans had one vessel of such and such a size. I have a complete list of all the ore carriers which have been built in world shipyards since 1952. A complete examination of this kind shows how badly we have fallen behind other countries because of inadequate port facilities, among other things.
It is obvious that we must put our steel industry, our steel plant, which is near the coast, in the same sort of position as the steel industries of the United States and Japan are being placed near their coastlines, where deep-water docks can be available alongside the steel works. I appreciate that it is difficult to do this in every case in Britain and that often it is a very costly business, but this difficulty must be

overcome if the problems facing the steel industry and our ports are to be solved.
For these reasons, a Measure of this kind and any Bill which is designed to do anything to improve the situation must be welcomed. It is interesting to note, when stressing the importance of iron-ore imports and other improvement schemes, the disadvantages under which the steel industry in Britain has operated, partly through its own fault, since the 1950s. It is not widely enough known that while the private steel industry has been complaining about its rating and fuel costs—and surely something to improve that situation could have been done by its own efforts—nothing has been done since the beginning of the 1950s. Consistently since then the C.I.F. prices of imported iron-ore have been higher than the prices paid by our German and Dutch competitors because of our higher freight discharging costs.
I am told that if we could use ore carriers of an economic size the C.I.F. cost of iron ore delivered to steel plant in this country could be reduced by as much as 10s. a ton, which would represent a saving of as much as 30s. a ton on finished steel. In stressing the need for a complete examination of the ore-importing facilities, I must point out that year by year Britain imports a growing proportion of her iron ore from orefields which are more than 2,000 miles away. It could be that as much as 50 to 60 per cent. of our iron ore imports will come from destinations as far away as this in the next few years. In addition, the lack of proper port facilities has caused investment in vessels of an uneconomic type—and which, in terms of size, were obsolete before they left the building yards. It has meant that 24 vessels of 8,000–10,000 tons were built for the British steel industry, with ports like Port Talbot in mind, at a cost of about £80 million, with some of the medium-sized ones costing about £50 million, when it would have been cheaper to have constructed larger vessels, which certainly would have been more economic.
Although the passing of Measures of this kind will put the steel importing firm of B.I.S.C. (Ore) Ltd. in difficulties—because it will render its vessels obsolete, although in many ways the firm


has put itself in this unfortunate position because of appalling investment decisions made in the past—I obviously approve anything which will result in improvements being made for the industry as a whole.
A number of questions must be answered. I have already complained of the lack of information. Does the Parliamentary Secretary not agree, in view of what has been said by the Rochdale Committee and others, that the largest vessels possible are the most economical and, if so, what size of ship will Port Talbot be able to take? I ask that question particularly, because I am suspicious of any decision taken in such matters as this by private firms in the steel industry, whose calculations and attitudes during the last ten years have been incalculably timid and conservative in relation to the optimum size of ore carriers we should be using.
As late as 1962 the Iron and Steel Board Report was talking of 25,000-ton vessels, when the rest of the world was talking in terms of 50,000- and 80,000-ton vessels—particularly on some of the long runs. To the Rochdale Committee, the steel industry suggested that a vessel of 35,000 tons was perhaps the optimum size, but the Committee came out quite openly against that suggestion and said that 45,000-ton vessels should be used, and that such a size of vessel was now the standard size for many other countries.
I am particularly worried that wherever the steel industry has any influence the harbour facilities or improvements carried out will be limited by the industry's present shipping commitments. The steel industry is now in the position that, while also recognising, along with the Iron and Steel Board and the Rochdale Committee, the urgent need to improve the ore port facilities, it is heavily committed to a large number of uneconomic carriers on long-term charter agreements. The 1962 Report of the Iron and Steel Board states in page 30:
The British Iron and Steel Federation consider, however, that the timing of the programme of development should take into account, amongst other things, the Federation's existing shipping commitments.
The private steel firms are in trouble with their long-term charter agreements.
On 23rd April, I had a letter from the Chairman of the Iron and Steel Board stating:
The policy of building ships for the industry has to be considered in relation to the existing fleet.
I therefore ask the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us what vessels will be able to use Port Talbot after these improvements are made, because although 45,000-ton carriers may be the optimum size for 1964, they will certainly not be the optimum size for 1968 or 1975, and we are building for a considerable time ahead.
Who pays for this? It is interesting that we now have two Bills dealing with the similar subject; this one and the Welsh Shipping Agency Bill in another place. In the latter case, we have a publicly-owned industry with a subsidiary of its own—the Welsh Shipping Agency—paying its own Parliamentary costs to put the Bill through the House, and being responsible for its own development along the lines of the Rochdale Committee's suggestions, about which the Iron and Steel Federation has been so very cautious. On the other hand, we have a nationalised concern, the British Transport Docks Board, doing the work for the Steel Company of Wales.
How much of this cost will the Steel Company of Wales pay, and how much will come from public funds? I do not think that I am infringing a constituency point when I say that in 1961, when the total imports into Port Talbot were 3¼ million tons, 2¾ million tons of this was ore imported by the Steel Company of Wales. How far is the Steel Company of Wales following the recommendations of the Rochdale Committee as to how much a steel firm with a predominant interest in the operation on a port should pay towards the costs?
A comparison of two industries is useful. Throughout the 'fifties the steel industry bemoaned the fact that it had to use small carriers because larger dock facilities were not available. The Rochdale Report suggests that the industry should pay a proportion of the cost of improvement, or even the lot, itself. On the other hand, the oil companies can bring into the country the largest oil tankers afloat because they have developed their own facilities at, for example, Milford Haven.
Lastly, what consideration has been, is, or will be given to the attitude of the Rochdale Committee that we could not afford too many deep ports in this country? It pointed out that perhaps there were arguments for a central terminal in South Wales rather than attempting to invest money in one, two or three schemes. I do not wish to oppose any Measure which will improve the scandalously inadequate ore-importing facilities into the country, but one feels extremely disturbed to see the manner in which the Bill has been put before the House without proper information and with a lack of any coordination between one Bill and another; and as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East has said, presumably a third Bill will come along.
My hon. Friend made a cogent and overwhelming case that there should be a detailed examination of the situation regarding the whole of the South Wales steel trade. I understand that a previous examination by the steel industry itself of the possibility of developing a central ore-importing terminal at Milford Haven fell through because it was considered, rightly or wrongly, not economic to tranship that ore to one particular Welsh port. Here, without transgressing the terms of the Bill, is a clear indication of the need for central planning and control and public ownership of the steel industry.
I am very troubled by the attitude of the Minister of Power towards the Bill I have a copy of a report by the Committee on the British Transport Docks Bill. We are told that there were reports on the Bill by the Minister of Housing and Local Government, by the Secretary of State for the Home Department and by the Minister of Transport, but apparently the Minister of Power, who is supposed to have a supervisory power over the steel industry and over the importation of raw materials, made no recommendations at all and presumably the Iron and Steel Board did not. I have long found that with the Ministry of Power, in the matter of the importation of iron ore, ignorance is very much a substitute for efficiency.
I am deeply disturbed at the place of and the part which the Iron and Steel Board is playing and has played over the last few years. What does the

Board do? It is given specific powers in Sections 3 and 11 of the 1953 Act, but when one examines the history from 1953 to 1964 there is no indication that the Board has done anything on a large scale which would help to cheapen the import of iron ore.
We are concerned here with the import of raw materials upon which the future prosperity of the whole country depends, and it is simply not good enough that we should have a Bill brought before the House in this manner and without receiving answers to these questions. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give us tonight a categorical assurance, assuming that the Bill goes through the House as an enabling Measure, that before any work starts on this scheme there shall be an independent assessment of the whole question of ore ports and of ore-importing facilities for South Wales, and for that matter for the whole country, so that we can have a clear picture of how cheaply we can import iron ore and which is the best way to do it. We shall then know how to proceed. If, after that kind of examination, the scheme proposed is satisfactory we should wish it to go through as quickly as possible.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. Stan Awbery: During the war, I was port labour inspector at some of the ports we are discussing tonight, and I know a little about them. I regard the idea of constructing jetties in the Bristol Channel as very far-sighted indeed. I believe that jetties will be the method of the future for discharging from very large vessels. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) that, perhaps, we have not given due consideration to the question of jetties and the matter may have to go back for further thought as to the suitability of one or three.
There have been references to the great size of modern vessels, 60,000 tons, 70,000 tons and more. Today, there are vessels of 150,000 tons on the drawing boards. This gives us some idea of where we are going in the size of ships. Ships are being built now which cannot come into our ports. Three or four months ago, I put a Question to the Minister about two ships of


105,000 tons being built in Kobe. If they came to this country, what ports could they use?
The Minister said that they could come to Fawley and Milford, but they could not. Milford is a very small port. A vessel of that size could not come there. It could come up to the Haven against a jetty and discharge its cargo, and possibly it could do the same at Fawley, but if vessels of that size required underwater repairs, there would be no place where they could go except Amsterdam, or across to America.
If vessels of 80,000 tons come up the Bristol Channel, there is no port to take them. Not one port in the Bristol Channel can take an 80,000-tonner, whether the cargo be iron ore or any other dry cargo or a cargo of oil. The purpose of building jetties is to meet the situation created by the growing size of ships.
The alternative to jetties is to construct new ports, and if vessels of these great sizes are to be accommodated in South Wales, very large ports indeed will have to be built. There is no large port there now. Port Talbot is a comparatively small port capable of taking vessels of about 12,000 or 14,000 tons. It cannot take the very large ones. The width of the entrance is not great enough for them to come in. The largest port in the Channel is at Bristol, with a width of 100 ft., but new ships are being built 120 ft. or 130 ft. wide, and they could not come in. Jetties are the right answer, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East said, we have to consider whether three are required.
There is in South Wales the greatest rise and fall of tide in any place in the world except one. The rise and fall in South Wales is 40 ft., and the people considering the construction of jetties have to take into account that rise and fall as vessels are tied up at the jetty. I am satisfied that the only alternative to the construction of jetties is a reorganisation of our old ports.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. We cannot discuss that on this Bill. We must stick to the construction of jetties for the importation of ore. The hon. Gentleman is quite entitled to refer to other matters

by way of illustration or explanation, but he must not go into detail.

Mr. Awbery: We are discussing the importation of ore at jetties or at ports, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. What are the jetties for if not for the vessels to come up against so that the ore can be discharged there instead of into port?
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East has been arguing the question whether one jetty is enough for the ports of South Wales or whether it is necessary to have three. I should like to hear something about freight costs compared with the cost of the jetties. The argument which is put forward is that if there were three jetties the cost of the ore would be less than if there were one. But if there were one jetty, the ore would have to be carried from that central spot, wherever the jetty might be, to the steel works. If it were situated in Cardiff, the ore would have to be conveyed 12 or 14 miles to the Newport works and 35 miles to the Port Talbot works. There is that cost which would be involved if there were one jetty. I hope that, if the Minister decides that further consideration must be given to this matter, that point will be taken into account.
Lastly, for the large ships, whether they carry iron ore or oil, the ports which we have today are becoming obsolete. We must either increase the size of our ports and build new entrances and new docks to accommodate these ships, or build jetties. I agree that jetties are the right solution, but whether it would be right to build three is a matter for hon. Members and the Minister to decide.

9.13 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett): Although I dare say that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) will not believe it, I can tell him that I am grateful to him for having brought this matter to our notice tonight. This debate has served a useful purpose. The hon. Member said that this was the first opportunity to raise the matter. But, with respect, I do not think that it was the first opportunity. He might have brought it to our notice on Second Reading. Had he done so, the right hon. and


learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) would not have had so much difficulty in making the points which he wished to make about the allied ports which are indirectly affected.
Before going further, I should like to apologise on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs for the fact that he was called away. He had intended to be here during the debate. But he has asked me to assure hon. Members, and particularly Welsh Members, that he will study the report of it very carefully.
Before going back to the speech of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, it would, perhaps, be convenient if I were to reply to one or two points raised by other hon. Members. The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. J. Morris), in common with, I think, almost every other hon Member, expressed doubts about whether there had been adequate consultation and co-ordination before these Bills were promoted. I think that hon. Members rather exaggerated this, but it was to deal with this sort of case that the Harbours Bill was promoted and the National Ports Council was set up. The Government had been aware for a long time that a more closely co-ordinated plan within which the development of our ports should take place was desirable. The Harbours Bill—touching wood, as I am—is now on its way to the Statute Book. It should come back to us from another place before long. So far, at any rate, the Harbours Bill has proved a less controversial way of ensuring this coordination concerning the iron ore ports than would be the renationalisation of steel.
I agree with the view of the hon. Member for Aberavon that the Bill, or at any rate the part which we have been discussing, is only a permissive Measure. I will refer to this later when I deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East.
The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert) feared that the fact that the Bill might reach the Statute Book before my right hon. Friend received advice from the National Ports Council would over-persuade my right hon. Friend into adopting this method rather than any

other. I can assure the hon. Member that that is not so. It will not over-persuade us in the least. He also feared that it conflicted with the Harbours Bill inasmuch as the procedure which would shortly be on the Statute Book provided for a different and, in our judgment, a more satisfactory way of obtaining the necessary powers to do what the Docks Board is seeking to do in this Bill by means of a harbour empowerment or revision order.
It is quite true that the Harbours Bill does this, but I do not think that it would be right to suggest that there is any conflict between it and a Private Bill because if the hon. Member will study the Harbours Bill he will find that there is a Clause, which, I think, is described as a saving Clause, for private legislation by which, in plain English, the right of any harbour authority—and the Docks Board is a harbour authority—to proceed by Private Bills, instead of using the provisions of the new harbours legislation, is expressly preserved. Even if the Harbours Bill had reached the Statute Book, it would have been perfectly in order for this Bill to have been presented to Parliament.
The hon. Member for Aberdare also asked whether the promoters were looking to the national interest or to sectional interests. I must echo what was pointed out by one or two of my hon. Friends that the promoters are a national public board, and I can assure him that they have no sectional interests. The Docks Board is not in the least concerned with sectional interests. It is concerned with the interests of the whole range of its ports.
My hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) rightly drew attention to the other port developments which would be delayed if this Bill were to be blocked or to fall. I noticed that the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, East (Commander Pursey) had a look of anguish once or twice when some of his hon. Friends suggested that the Bill should be set back or defeated.
It is quite true—I may as well make this point now—that this Bill in addition to giving authority for the work at Port Talbot also gives authority for


works at Immingham, King's Lynn and Hull, all of which are urgently required by those ports, and for that reason alone both the Docks Board and the Government would be extremely concerned if the Bill were to be successfully blocked. The hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) feared that the Docks Board is becoming a creature of private interests in this Bill. I can assure him that is not so. Not, of course, unless one regards the supplier of a particular service, which is what a port authority is, as a creature of its customers which is what the Steel Company of Wales is. But I do not think that is a right way of looking at it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) rightly pointed out that if this scheme is eventually approved a big delay would result from the blocking of this Bill. That is undisputed and I will come back to that later. The right hon. and learned Member for Newport referred to the dredging experiments that have been carried out in the Bristol Channel and in other places and asked that the National Ports Council should have the results of these experiments before them. I am quite sure that we can trust Lord Rochdale and his colleagues to make quite certain that they have all the relevant information before them. After all, this problem was remitted to them by my right hon. Friend some time ago and to my certain knowledge they have been working on it and I am quite sure that they will demand all the requisite information to arrive at a balanced conclusion.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman then put me in some difficulty by asking for assurances about another Bill. As you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, pointed out it would not be in order for me to go into that but I can assure him that all relevant matters will be taken into account. My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) also seemed to be rather more interested in another Bill. The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. McBride) asked for the position of all South Wales ports to be considered in the context of the Bill. That will certainly be so in so far as it is relevant.

Mr. McBride: I am grateful for what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said,

but I asked him to consider in the context of general cargo handling the position of Swansea only.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I appreciate that and I am sure that it will be done, although that is outside the terms of the Bill. The hon. Member, however, need have no fear about that, because it was some months back that my right hon. Friend, in answer to a Question, announced that he had asked the Ports Council to investigate and report upon the particular case of these ports.
The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) made a detailed speech in which he emphasised, and I agree with him, the need for efficient iron ore importing arrangements. We not only agree with him on that, but, also, that it applies equally to all forms of imports into the Kingdom. That is why my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport set up the Rochdale Committee as far back as March, 1961, and that was why the Government promoted the Harbours Bill.
The hon. Member did not use quite the right word in suggesting that it was the task of the Government to defend the Bill as such today or to explain it in all its detail. My task is really to explain the Government's attitude towards the Bill in general and to the Amendment in particular. The hon. Member asked me one or two questions, however, which I will try to answer. He asked what size of ship the project at Port Talbot would provide for. The answer is 65,000 tons, which is well above the size which, at present at least, is considered the optimum for this country.
The hon. Member may consider that the calculations are wrong. I am certainly not in a position to criticise them, but I assure him that more than two years ago I was shown a number of graphs prepared by the steel industry showing, if I may rather oversimplify it, efficiency against size of ship. They seemed to indicate that vessels more in the 40,000 tons range would suit us best. A good margin is, therefore, provided in the Bill.
The hon. Member asked who would pay. The short answer is that it will be the port users, but the extent by


which they pay by making provision towards the capital cost of the project or the extent to which they pay in terms of port dues is a variable factor. Our policy has been that these Docks Board ports are to pay their way. As a step towards achieving that aim, my right hon. Friend asked the Docks Board, when it was set up in replacement of the British Transport Commission, to show the accounts for the different ports separately. They had not previously been separated, but they are now.
The hon. Member can rest assured that before a project of this nature is approved—the Government have to approve it before it goes forward—the viability of the whole scheme will be closely studied. The House will realise that even if my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport showed any sign of omitting to do this, the Treasury have an active interest in these matters also and would certainly wish to know that the scheme will pay its way.
I was glad to note that the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Awbery) supported the idea of having jetties as the best method of dealing with the iron ore import problem in the special case of the Bristol Channel. That is the view which has been reached by experts who have studied the matter for a long time. Hence the Bill. The hon. Member agreed, and so do we, that the co-ordinated plan, even possibly a single landing place, might be better. On the other hand, he pointed out that there are also pros and cons with regard to one discharge point as against several discharge points.
In his opening speech, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East gave such an admirable summary of the reasons for improving the import facilities for ore that I need not elaborate them. I am sure that this is common ground. Then he asked, should a steel works have its own discharging facilities? That is precisely the question, I can assure the House, which has been under examination for over three years, not only by the steel companies themselves, not only, to a certain extent, by the Iron and Steel Board and the Ministry of Power, but also by the Docks Board and also at the Ministry of Transport. It is now, as I shall explain shortly, just the thing which is being examined by the National Ports Council.
I remind the House, to show how long and how wide the study had gone before this Bill was promoted, that this Bill is in a way the successor of what was called the Angle Bay scheme, with which some hon. Members will be familiar, for it was mentioned by one hon. Member. Originally, the Steel Company of Wales had intended to discharge ore from big carriers at Milford Haven, and it actually acquired property to do it, and it still owns it, I believe I am right in saying, and to bring it in by existing ships. It was when it came to the conclusion that that scheme was not economic, or rather that it was less economic than building jetties, that it turned to this scheme which really forms the substance of the present Bill, and it convinced the Docks Board this was the best way. But this was not done without a great deal of thought and consideration. I think it must be two and a half years ago now that I visited Port Talbot with the late Sir Robert Letch and I met Mr. Cartwright, the general manager of the South Wales Steel Company to discuss this very point.

Mr. Abse: Are we to understand that at that time the hon. and gallant Gentleman was discussing whether Milford Haven was the terminal which would be suitable for steel industry of South Wales, or was that only related to Port Talbot? I ask because we are concerned with the whole of the industry and not only with what may have been good or bad for Port Talbot and the Steel Company of Wales itself.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I appreciate that, and of course the original scheme could have been equally used for ferrying ore to other ports which would take carriers of only limited size.
As far as the Port Talbot scheme is concerned I want to emphasise, because this was one of the major points raised by the hon. Gentleman, that the powers sought are enabling powers. The hon. Gentleman asked for an assurance that the Docks Board would not implement this part of the Bill without Government approval. I can give that assurance, and I will explain why. To begin with the Docks Board in its own notes says:
It has always been accepted by the Board that when they have obtained the necessary powers for the scheme they would not commence work pending a decision of the Government.


I think that that assurance in itself ought to be acceptable, but even if the Board had not given the assurance the Government have ample powers to control this, because if a project were to be wholly financed by the Docks Board it would need, as the hon. Member for Aberavon pointed out, to seek the approval of my right hon. Friend under Section 27(2) of the Transport Act, 1962. If the works were to be wholly or substantially financed by the Steel Company of Wales it would be required by the Iron and Steel Act to seek authorisation of the Iron and Steel Board. If in the most unlikely event it seemed that the Board and the Steel Company were endeavouring to avoid obtaining Government authorisation then my right hon. Friend could issue a direction to the Board under Section 27(1) of the Transport Act as being a matter which appeared to him to affect the national interest.
Finally, there is even a longstop power over all this because, under Clause 34 of the Bill, works below the high water mark, which are an important proportion of the project, may not be constructed without the Minister's approval. It is true that this is a navigational consent and not on policy grounds, but it constitutes a further safeguard enabling the Minister to ensure that he is satisfied before the scheme can go ahead. I hope that, as far as that goes, I have convinced hon. Members that we have adequate powers not to allow the scheme to go forward if we do not think it the best scheme.
The Minister's report on the Bill, from which quotations were made by the hon. Member for Aberavon recognises the need for provision to be made to handle larger ore carriers as was recommended by the Rochdale Committee. Furthermore, the present scheme is, in our view, technically satisfactory, but before the Minister authorises the project he will certainly have to be satisfied that it is the best answer in the general context of the arrangements for importing ore into South Wales. It was on this basis that my right hon. Friend recommended that the powers should be given to the Board to proceed with the scheme.
The Board was given authority to promote the Bill last autumn. It has been asked why the Port Talbot scheme was not held over to be dealt with under the Harbours Bill. In the first place, no one could be sure at that time what sort of Bill would emerge from Parliament. Indeed, we could not be sure that we would get the Bill in the life of this Parliament because neither my right hon. Friend nor I had been let into the secret or were able to forecast when the election would take place. Had we had a March election we could not have got the Harbours Bill.
Secondly, apart from that consideration, there would have been an element of delay in adopting that course. I remind the House that the Rochdale Report, dated September, 1962, stressed that deep water berths were urgently required for ore carriers, especially in South Wales. Even if the project is authorised this year it will be about 1967 before the berths will be in use.
Supposing, however, that we had waited for the Harbours Bill to be enacted. It would have been next month at the very earliest before the Board could have applied for a harbour revision Order. It would have had to go through the stringent objections procedure laid down in the Bill and we can be sure, from what we have heard tonight, that there would have been objections in a number of quarters, and this would have taken several months.
If the Minister of Transport had then decided to make an Order it would have been subject to the special Parliamentary procedure and time is taken up by this type of Parliamentary procedure. Perhaps hon. Members have not realised that this streamlined procedure, as it has rightly been called, in the Harbours Bill is not necessarily very much quicker than the procedure of the private Bill, although it is more flexible in as much as it can be started at any time.
Certainly, as many hon. Members have hinted, it is superior to that procedure in that it allows a wider range of objections to be stated and heard, but it is not necessarily quicker. We estimate that a really strenuously opposed harbour revision scheme would probably take anything up to 10 months to get past all the safeguards before the Order could become effective. In short,


if we had waited for the Harbours Bill, we should have run the risk of delaying the project for up to a year in the event of its being decided eventually as being the best solution, and this is a project which the Rochdale Committee said in 1962 was urgently required.

Mr. Probert: I have been listening most attentively to the Parliamentary Secretary's explanation of the safeguards with private legislation when the Minister has power to do this, that and the other. However, what we have been saying is that despite the delay implicit in the Harbours Bill, surely that delay is merited if there are objections. Secondly, I am not yet satisfied with the explanation of the Minister's powers to influence the decision under the Bill. Are they arbitrary powers, or does he have to come to the House in any way?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: The hon. Gentleman called them arbitrary powers, but, none the less, they are powers written into Statutes which have been passed by Parliament, comparatively recently in most cases. To some extent, in some cases the safeguards of the Harbours Bill will apply under this Bill in as much as the project will be examined by the National Ports Council. Of course, we are in the transition from one procedure for ordering our harbours affairs to another.
To recapitulate what I have been saying, one could take the line that everything should be stopped until one could make use of the new procedure. However, I remind the House that on more than one occasion when we were debating the Rochdale Report, and again during the proceedings on the Harbours Bill, certainly on Second Reading, my right hon. Friend and I gave the most definite assurances that we would not allow important schemes to be held up until such time as the full procedure under the Harbours Bill could take effect. I think that that would be wrong and I hope to satisfy the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East that it would also be unnecessary.
All I can do now to satisfy him and keep in order is to explain what the position will be if this Measure reaches the Statute Book. The granting of these powers will not in itself initiate any action on the Port Talbot Dock but it

will legalise the scheme should the Government decide in its favour in due course. After the Bill receives the Royal Assent, if it is allowed to go through Parliament, the Board will no doubt apply without delay for approval of the capital expenditure. That is what we expect. My right hon. Friend will then need to have the views of the National Ports Council, and I can assure the House that, having set up the Council, he would not dream of authorising a harbour project of this magnitude without first obtaining its advice. I am sure that everybody would agree that to do otherwise would be a most improper procedure.
When it considers the project, the Council will examine its merits in relation to the various alternative schemes which have been put forward. It will certainly have to take into account particularly the technical and financial considerations affecting all those schemes—and I stress "all". You have been very indulgent, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in allowing one or two other schemes to be mentioned, but I can assure you that there are others which have not been mentioned and which have been pressed upon us and which are being pressed upon us and which could solve these ore importing problems in the South Wales ports. It will also be necessary to seek the views of the other Departments concerned; naturally, too, the Iron and Steel Board. It would be only after my right hon. Friend had received the recommendations of the National Ports Council and consulted the other Ministers concerned that he would dream of authorising this scheme to go ahead.
I can therefore assure the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East that the decision on whether to implement the powers of the Bill will not be taken in isolation. In fact, as one or two hon. Members have said, the Council has already been asked by my right hon. Friend to examine the merits of this project together with those of the other proposals put forward for handling large ore carriers. It is now collecting all the relevant information about these schemes.
In addition, I am informed by Lord Rochdale that it is preparing a very detailed questionnaire which will shortly


be sent to the sponsors of each of the schemes put forward. It will certainly consult the Railways Board in any inquiries it makes, and indeed if, as I hope, the Harbours Bill reaches the Statute Book very soon, it will be required to do so, because that provision is written into the Harbours Bill. Any advice which the Council gives to my right hon. Friend will certainly have to be supported by facts and figures, otherwise I do not see how we can assess or evaluate it.
I cannot give a definite answer to the question whether the Council would employ consultants, because I have no idea what is in the Council's mind. It has power to employ them, and I know that during the long discussions that we had with Lord Rochdale when the Harbours Bill was in the process of gestation before being drafted he made it quite clear that if he thought it would be advantageous he would prefer to employ consultants rather than build up an enormous staff. It will depend very much on how clear the answers are to the questionnaire, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not think me discourteous if I can give no more definite assurance than that.
The hon. Gentleman also asked how much would be made public. I hope that he and the House will agree that it would be wrong to establish a precedent for the actual advice tendered by the council to the Minister of Transport necessarily being made public. I do not think that that is what the hon. Gentleman had in mind, but we do not think that that would be a proper precedent. I think that at the stage when the Council renders its report to my right hon. Friend, or to any subsequent Minister of Transport, it should be at the discretion of the two parties concerned, namely, the Council, on the one hand, and the Minister of Transport on the other, to decide whether the advice in the form in which it is presented should be made public. On the other hand, I agree that when a decision is reached by my right hon. Friend, or by his successor, the arguments on which it is based should be made quite clear. I think that we are all agreed about that.
For the reasons that I have given, I cannot undertake that all the facts and figures which have been made known to

the Council and to my right hon. Friend will be published. After all, if hon. Members reflect on the matter for a moment they will realise that it is possible that matters which, rightly or wrongly, were regarded as of great commercial secrecy would have to be disclosed, and it is not only private industry that is rather particular about disclosing its commercial secrets. Having dealt with nationalised boards, I can assure hon. Members of that. The public boards are equally concerned about not having to put everything on a plate before their competitors, because they are not monopolies. They are all subject to competition.
I give the assurance that if my right hon. Friend and I are still in office when this issue arises we will endeavour to publish sufficient information to show clearly what the economic grounds were on which the decision was made, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied with that assurance.

Mr. Callaghan: One of the things that has concerned me is that a number of different authorities in South Wales have different figures. Some of them say that it will cost one sum, others say that it will cost another, and others again say that it will cost something else. One of the things which could usefully be done by the Council is to reconcile these different figures which may be drawn up on different bases and try to get the various groups concerned, the Docks Board, the Iron and Steel Board, Western Region of the Railways Board, and so on, to agree to work on a common basis so that there is no argument afterwards as to the basis on which they have been working. Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman think that it will be possible for the Council to tackle that task?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I shall bring that to the notice of the Council. I am sure that it would wish to do that, but whether it will find it possible is a wider question. Before we started this debate we had a debate on the vexed question of nuclear ships, and the same phenomenon is to be found there. The promoter of a scheme has his own figures, which are not readily reconciled with those of people promoting rival schemes. However, I will


bring this point to the notice of Lord Rochdale, as Chairman of the Committee. Even if I were not to do so I am sure that he would do his utmost to try to get some order out of the various figures which have been put forward.

Mr. Callaghan: I have listened with gratitude to what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, as I think the whole House has. He has replied to the points made by every speaker. He has been most painstaking in doing so, as he always is. I still think that this is an odd way of doing business, but in view of the very firm and careful assurances which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has given about the powers of the Government, and his assurance that the position will not be prejudiced if the Bill is allowed to go forward, with the consent of my hon. Friends I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question again proposed.

9.46 p.m.

Commander Harry Pursey: Now that the Amendment concerning South Wales has been disposed of, I wish to deal with that part of the Bill which relates to the River Humber and the Port of Hull.
This is an omnibus Bill dealing with several ports, and also with different subjects, some controversial and some uncontroversial. We have been discussing the controversial question which of the South Wales ports should be selected for major developments requiring the expenditure of millions of pounds from the national cake. For what purposes? They include the all-important imports of oil and iron ore, and exports of coal.
The case for the South Wales ports has been ably stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and other of my hon. Friends. As an East Coast representative, it is not for me to enter into a controversy with representatives of lesser West Coast ports. In general, I support my hon. Friend's argument.
But the Bill also deals with uncontroversial port developments. In Part III, for instance, Clause 14, and other Clauses which are concerned with works, deal with developments at Hull, and also

dredging and other matters affecting the River Humber. It might have been better if the Docks Board had produced two Bills, one for the South Wales ports—knowing that this was a controversial question and was likely to cause some delay—and a separate one for the other ports, where developments were not controversial and no delay was likely.
Hull is the third largest port in Britain, and the largest Docks Board port. Most of the docks are in my constituency, and consequently I wish to deal with what has been and what should have been included in the Bill for Hull and the River Humber, one of our largest estuaries.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member cannot deal with what is not included in the Bill.

Commander Pursey: I purposely made that point so as to establish the position early in the proceedings, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
The Bill will give authority for development works in Hull, in the Victoria Dock area. This dock is one of the older docks and is used, among other things, for the import, unloading and dispatch of timber. There is also the question of the new dock for Hull which has been recommended by the Rochdale Committee, the discussion of which I understand from your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, would be out of order.
But in Point of fact there has been no major development in general cargo ships at Hull docks for several decades, and for many years there has been an increasing demand—and certainly since the war an excessive demand—on port facilities at the Victoria and other docks and for more wharves to unload an increasing number of ships. In particular, there has been an increasing demand for longer and deeper berths at Victoria Dock for large ships which at present are unable to use the docks. It is essential for increasing overseas trade, both exports and imports, from and to the Midlands and Yorkshire and to and from the Continent, that this new dock should be approved so that greater use shall be made of it and also of the Port of Hull.
In the same way a question of coal handling arises in connection with this


dock. This is a major export both from South Wales and from Hull and a ready-money spinner to help to improve the adverse balance of payments, which at the moment is of major concern nationally. Hull shipped 1½ million tons last year, some overseas and some coastwise, and this year the target is 2 million tons. Unfortunately, the coal hoists are of Victorian vintage and due to defects are available only for half the working hours. With modern appliances twice the amount of coal could be shipped to the advantage of the national product, the Coal Board and the Docks Board. Approval for new coaling appliances at Hull—as well as approval for large-scale developments at Port Talbot—is a matter of definite concern.
Hull is the second timber importing port in the country, only London having a greater record. A good deal of the timber is imported at Victoria Dock. Improved dock and rail facilities at Hull are required for the timber trade. On the other hand, it is essential that the timber traders should make far better use of the facilities which are available. Timber wagons should be got away from the docks with less delay and to the consignees with greater speed. Wagons should then be unloaded and freed for other use with far greater despatch. Everyone complains, but everyone contributes to the delays in the turn-round of ships, and until everyone works for the benefit of all concerned, instead of selfish interests, everyone will be the loser of trade and profits in the timber trade.
From time to time the Hull timber trade cries out about a shortage of wagons, which is the trade's own fault, and especially about a shortage of tarpaulins and ropes at the Victoria Dock. These requisites, tarpaulins and ropes, are provided, and the timber traders at Victoria Dock lose them. All the trade has to do is to return them to the docks and they can be used again. It is as simple as that. The hon. Member for

Kingston-upon-Hull, North (Mr. Coulson)—his constituency does not include the docks—from time to time writes letters to Dr. Beeching and makes statements to the Hull Daily Mail about the Victoria Dock and about the supposed shortage of tarpaulins and ropes, but he does not make speeches in the House about them or any other docks matters.
This is an important Bill in respect of Hull docks—

Mr. John Wells: On a point of order. All this about tarpaulins and ropes is very interesting, but is it in the Bill?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I was waiting to hear what the hon. and gallant Gentleman intended to develop out of it.

Commander Pursey: As this is an important Bill, and as it was know in advance that it was to be discussed, one would have expected the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, North to be in his place and to have taken part in the debate.
I support the Bill and express the hope that it will not be long before the British Transport Docks Board will produce another Bill to authorise the building of the new large deep water dock on the Humber and also that the requirements for the improved shipment of coal and the unloading and transport of timber will be dealt with without further delay.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, considered accordingly; to be read the Third time.

SUPPLY

Again considered in Committee.

Original Question again proposed.

Whereupon Motion made, and Question, That The Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again—[Mr. Peel]—put and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

AGRICULTURE (IMPORTED PRODUCTS)

9.57 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Scott-Hopkins): I beg to move,
That the Price Stability of Imported Products (Specified Commodities) Order 1964, a draft of which was laid before this House on 15th April, be approved.
I apologise to the House if my voice is a little muffled, but unfortunately I have rather a heavy head cold.
I suggest that it would be convenient to the House if we had a single discussion on this Order and on the following Order:
That the Price Stability of Imported Products (Minimum Import Price Levels) Order 1964, a draft of which was laid before this House on 15th April, be approved.
Both these Orders are made under the powers granted to the three Agricultural Ministers in Section 1 of the Agriculture and Horticulture Act, 1964, which the House passed earlier this year. Section 1 of the Act enables the Ministers to make Orders introducing minimum import price and levy arrangements. The purpose of these arrangements is stated in the opening words of the Section, which says they must be—
In the interest of maintaining in the United Kingdom a stable market for agricultural or horticultural produce of any description produced in the United Kingdom".
Section 1 of the Act was very thoroughly discussed while the Bill was going through this House, and we made it clear that our purpose in seeking these powers was to enable us to apply minimum import price arrangements to certain cereals and cereal products as part of our new policy for cereals which was announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture in the House on 22nd May last year.
There are three stages in applying the powers in Section 1 of the Act to particular commodities. In the first place, the Ministers must first list—or, to use the word of the Act, "specify"—the commodities to which they wish to be able to apply the minimum import price and levy arrangements. Any orders

specifying commodities must be submitted for affirmative resolution by each House of Parliament.
Secondly, the Ministers can then prescribe minimum import price levels for the different specified commodities or sub-divisions of them. These are the two Orders we are now discussing.
Thirdly, they prescribe the detailed arrangements for the charging of levies for the purpose of maintaining or enforcing the prescribed minimum import price levels. This is the third stage, to which we have not yet come.
The first Order—that which lists or specifies commodities—has the effect of defining the field of commodities within which the Ministers are able to apply and operate the minimum import price and levy arrangements. As the House will see, the initial list in the draft Order covers all the main cereals; the only exceptions are those which are of no practical significance, and rice which does not compete with cereals produced in the United Kingdom.
We are also specifying in this Order the cereal flours; the various worked cereals, such as cereal meals, groats, etc.; and the offals or residues from the working of cereals These secondary products have had to be included because otherwise they would have been able to compete with main cereals and so undermine the market for them. On the other hand, we did not want to extend the list of commodities too widely, and so we have included only those secondary products which it was essential to cover for the basic purpose of the minimum import price system—that is, the provision of greater stability on the United Kingdom grain market.
The effect of this Order is, as I have said, to define the field of commodities within which the Ministers are empowered to operate minimum import price and levy arrangements. If, in the light of experience, we find it necessary to add to the list of "specified commodities" in the draft Order, we would have to come back to Parliament with an amending Order for a further affirmative resolution.
The second Order prescribes the precise levels of the minimum import prices for the various "specified commodities" and for the subdivisions of them as defined in the Schedule. As the House


will recognise, the minimum import price levels are the crux of any minimum import price arrangements since they determine the extent to which the market for domestic cereals will be protected from the disruptive effects of low-priced imports.
Throughout the discussions on the new arrangements for cereals, we have made it clear that the minimum import prices are not to be applied with the object of creating a restrictive regime which would have the effect of raising the general level of prices in the United Kingdom. The aim is simply to cut out the unrealistically low-priced imports which have from time to time come to the United Kingdom as the only large and completely open import market for cereals. So long as we continue to maintain a completely open door to imports whatever their price, our market must always be liable to disruption from supplies which are seeking a market at any price, with the consequent effects on the returns to our cereal growers and on the cost to the Exchequer of the deficiency payments on cereals.
It is clear that we cannot continue to benefit from the luxury of bargain basement prices, while at the same time maintaining our system of support based on deficiency payments.
We have, therefore, pitched the level of the minimum import prices towards the lower end of the range within which import prices have fluctuated, but at levels which cut out the troughs of unrealistically low prices.
The relationship between the minimum import prices for the main cereals has been determined in the light of a number of factors—as, for example, differences in quality or in feeding value; market differentials; the degree to which the products concerned are competitive with home grown grain and so on.
Each of the main cereals—with the exception of wheat—is subject to a single minimum import price. Wheat and wheat flour, however, have been subdivided for the purpose of the minimum import price arrangements. Different minimum import prices are being applied to the different subdivisions, which take account of the wider quality differentials which exist between the different varieties of these commodities.
These two Orders cover, as I have said, the first two of the three stages which I mentioned a moment ago.
The third stage will be dealt with by a further Order, which will prescribe the types of levies and the arrangements for charging them when it is necessary to do so in order to maintain the minimum import price levels. However, as we made very clear during the debates on the Bill, it is our policy to proceed where possible by agreement with our overseas suppliers. Not only is this desirable on general grounds, but it is necessary because of our treaty obligations to a number of these countries.
Agreements have already been concluded between the United Kingdom Government, on the one hand, and the Governments of Australia, Canada, the U.S.A. and Argentina—which between them supply some 80–85 per cent. of our cereals imports—on the other. The texts of these agreements was contained in a White Paper laid before the House on 15th April. Under their terms, the exporting countries concerned have undertaken to co-operate in the operation and observance of the minimum import prices laid down in this Order. If, however, it should happen that the prices at which any "specified commodity" is available for import into the United Kingdom from an individual co-operating country fall below the related minimum import price level, we shall retain the right to impose levies on these imports in order to maintain the minimum import price. We expect to conclude similar agreements with a number of our other overseas suppliers.
The provisions in the Order prescribing the levy arrangements—which, as I have said, will be laid before the House at a later date—will be drafted in terms which reflect the agreements concluded with our overseas suppliers. In particular, provision will be made for a general levy to be charged, when necessary, on imports from non-co-operating sources. If, on the other hand, an individual cooperating country falls down on its undertaking to observe our minimum import price levels, then its exports to us would be subject to a special country levy, and not to the general levy arrangements.
The country levy would be determined by reference to the difference


between the minimum import price level for the commodity concerned and the price at which supplies of that commodity were available for import into the United Kingdom from that individual exporting country. The general levy, on the other hand, would be determined by reference to the difference between the minimum import price and the prices at which supplies were available for import into the United Kingdom on the world market generally. All these detailed provisions, together with the provisions for distinguishing between imports from co-operating countries and other imports, will, as I have said, be covered in the subsequent Order which will be laid before the House in due course.
I should also explain to the House that special arrangements are to apply to Canadian and Australian wheat flour, the details of which were published yesterday. The legislative cover for these arrangements will also form part of this further Order which I have referred to. It was not found possible to fit these flours into the general minimum import price arrangements in such a way as to take account of the special circumstances of the trade, and to maintain the preferences which both Canada and Australia enjoy on wheat flour. These special arrangements are designed to take account of these special circumstances and at the same time to safeguard our minimum import price system and to prevent the United Kingdom flour market from being undermined.
The arrangements include a related levy on Canadian and Australian wheat where there is a country levy on the corresponding wheat, together with a number of assurances and other arrangements which, in our view, will effectively protect our market. The whole of the wheat flour arrangements will be kept under review by a Supervisory Flour Committee comprising representatives of our Government and the Governments of Canada, Australia and the United States. The job of this Committee will be to iron out any problems which may arise in the operation of the arrangements. It will hold its first meeting in London during the first week of June.
The House will have noted that the minimum import price levels Order will

come into effect on a date or dates to be specified by the Order. It would clearly have been impossible to bring into effect the minimum import price levels before the Order prescribing the levy arrangements for enforcing these levels had been made. We thought it right, however, both in order to allow Parliament to approve them in advance and to enable the trade to know where they stand, to bring the minimum import price, levels before Parliament at the same time as the Order specifying the commodities concerned. There will be special arrangements to cover grain which is contracted for between the publication of the minimum import prices and the appointed day but which is not actually imported until after the appointed day.
To sum up, the two Orders which are before the House, together with the further Order to which I have referred, implement that part of the Government's new arrangements for cereals which relates to the control of import prices. The new arrangements relating to domestic production have been outlined in this year's Annual Review White Paper. These modifications in our existing system for cereals are designed to ensure greater stability in our cereals market and, by so doing, to contain the cost to the Exchequer of the deficiency payments and, most important of all, safeguard our present system of support. I therefore commend these Orders to the House for approval.

10.11 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Peart: As the House is aware, we did not oppose the Bill which is now an Act, but we were critical of some of the details of Part I, which creates the scheme which we are now discussing. We have taken the view throughout that the Orders which would flow from legislation and from the many suggestions we put to the House both in general debate and in Committee would have to be carefully examined. The Government tonight are presenting these two Orders but, as the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has said, there will be a third Order.
I should be out of order if I went into this matter in great detail. The hon. Gentleman has enabled me to do this partly, and the time will certainly


come when we shall examine carefully the type of administrative machinery which will be created by the third Order. In one sense, therefore, we are in some difficulty, but I presume that I can reply to the points made by the hon. Gentleman. It is true, as he said, that the reasons for the Orders were outlined long before the legislation was ever presented. Indeed, we once debated the Government's general policy on import control and standard quantities. As the hon. Gentleman has rightly said, the two cannot be separated. If we are discussing these Orders and their effect, not only on import policy but on home production, we must judge them in the context of main Government policy.
It is true that standard quantities for cereals were laid down in the recent Annual Price Review. I will not go into the details. We have the figures which have some bearing on the policy that is being put forward this evening. Although we are discussing import control and the minimum levy and minimum import price system, we must always discuss them in relation to the standard quantity principle which has been laid down by the Government for a very long time.
The Parliamentary Secretary has mentioned the various negotiations. We have not had time to discuss them in detail though the hon. Gentleman has given us details tonight of the conclusions reached with Canada, Australia and the Argentine. We do not disagree with this. Obviously, if we are to have an import policy, it is better that we should have sensible voluntary agreements with our traditional suppliers. On the other hand, although agreement can be reached, difficulties may arise. We have had a recent experience with meat. Although we have voluntary agreements with our traditional suppliers, in order to re-emphasise the need for phasing meat imports with home production, there have been difficulties. For various reasons, mainly climatic, perhaps, the Argentine is not supplying the quantities which we expected. I hope that, although we have voluntary arrangements for cereals confirmed by treaty with Canada, the Argentine and Australia, there will be no breakdowns and no serious shortages which could affect the market here and our own producers. Can we have assurances?
The Orders confirm Section 1 of the Act. The White Paper deals with international arrangements, and there have been references to specific arrangements which have had to be concluded by the Government with Canada and Australia regarding wheat flour. Again, I should be out of order if I discussed these in detail. There is to be a supervisory committee. I trust it will work. We cannot press the point too much now. Perhaps, when we have the Order in detail, we shall be able to pursue the argument. Inevitably, out of the arrangements which are being made there will have to come some permanent machinery. I am not sure that the Government know where they are going as regards the creation of suitable permanent machinery to produce the stability which we require.
How is this system to be administered? The Minister has spoken of the two types of levy. In Committee on the Bill, we chided the Government on their uncertainty. On Second Reading, when we discussed the principle, the Minister was not aware of the point. He was in the dark and, when hon. Members pressed him, it was clear that he did not know. Only after hon. Members had pressed the Parliamentary Secretary over and over again in Standing Committee were we able to get some information. The hon. Gentleman did very well. He was an improvement on his Minister, and he was able to explain in detail how the levy would work for non-co-operating countries as against those countries which had agreed to conclude treaty obligations with us.
But even now there is uncertainty about the levy. I have here the Ministry's Press announcement which deals with the special arrangements for imports of Canadian and Australian flours which have been referred to by the Minister. In this Press statement there is reference to a related levy, but on the back page, in the appendix, the reference throughout regarding the special arrangement for Australian flour is to a derived levy to be applied to imports of Australian wheat flour. The derived rate of levy per ton of flour will be 1·4 times the levy per ton of wheat. Here, therefore, we have other terminology introduced, so it will not be easy even for those who have to administer the scheme to have any certainty.
The Minister has tried to give us some information. These Orders are needed if we accept the Act, but how is the scheme to be administered? Will it be done through the Civil Service or shall we have some permanent machinery outside the Civil Service? Over and over again, many people connected with the trade—merchants, those who are also in the import trade as well as those who deal in home production and the marketing of cereal products—have come to the conclusion that there must be some organised marketing and that this should take place outside the Ministry. The Government will have to come to the House with something much more detailed concerning the administration of these orders and the levies and minimum prices laid down.
I wish to quote what the Minister said on the Second Reading of the Bill on 22nd May, 1963. He stated:
The detailed arrangements for the different commodities which we would aim to agree with our overseas suppliers might well need to induce a body to keep under review the level of supplies and also the phasing of those supplies in our markets in the light of changes in the pattern here and overseas and other factors, such as the opening up of new markets."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd May, 1963; Vol. 678, c. 449.]
In principle, the Minister had to accept, because of the pressure of events, the need for some sort of machinery to phase our imports.
These Orders are very specific. They confirm the Government's policy, and give details of how it is to be worked out for various cereal products. When will the Government do something about this? Is it just a pious hope? Is this to be left to an enlarged department of the Ministry of Agriculture? Is the Civil Service, which is excellent in its way—I pay tribute to the men who deal with this matter—to be enlarged? Is this hard-working group of men who have helped to frame the policy to have additional staff? How will it operate? This will be a major job in the Ministry.
Those in the business, the practical businessmen, take a contrary view to the Government, as the Minister knows. I have here a memorandum which has been given to most hon. Members—[Interruption.]—I do not know whether the hon. Member wishes to make a speech. I will give way if he wishes to interrupt. I am sure that he and other

Tory Members have read the memorandum from the National Association of Corn and Agricultural Merchants Ltd. on the marketing of cereals. It has a bearing on these Orders. The Association makes three main points. The first is
a possible increase, depending on the level of minimum import prices imposed, in feed and food prices.
That is the effect of Government policy.
Livestock and livestock products provide over 70 pet cent. of farmers' income and increases in feed prices could react on production.
The Minister said this evening that the Government have set the prices in the lower band; they are dealing with prices which are of a low order. Therefore, they do not contemplate—I assume that this is how the Minister is thinking—an increase in cereal prices to the farmer. They are merely creating a bottom in the market. This is the Minister's argument. However, the trade is very worried about this. The first main point in the memorandum to which I have just referred is that there could be a possible increase which could have a serious effect on farmers' incomes.
In preparing these Orders, did the Ministry consult the corn merchants and the trade? Has it consulted all those concerned?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: indicated assent.

Mr. Peart: We have had these assurances before. The trade takes a different view from the Government. It may be that the trade has been consulted. But it may have been ignored. Often it is ignored, because the Government, in their decline, have adopted a measure of arrogance. This has happened time and again.
The second point made by the corn merchants is
that to traders it seems illogical to ask exporting nations to send grain here at agreed price; which may be above the price at which they are prepared to sell, when world grain prices are low".
My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie) made this point over and over again in Standing Committee. Is this so? I should like to know the views of hon. Members opposite who claim to be business men. Do they accept the views of business men in the trade who have worries about this matter? I hope that they and the Minister will give us their views.
Thirdly, the National Association of Corn and Agricultural Merchants Ltd. states
that the new framework of support through restrictions on import prices will not, by itself, guarantee a minimum market price for home grown cereals. If the home market is under severe pressure at any time in the season from domestic supplies, prices of home grown grain could fall below their value in relation to imported supplies".
The Association goes on to say that it
feels that early action should be taken to help in the more orderly marketing of the home grain crop, and puts forward the following proposals
including a non-trading cereals commission which would do the job which is to be done by the Government under the Orders.
That is a serious criticism of the Government, who have been extremely vague about their policy. If we are to approve these Orders, we must know how they are to be implemented. That, as the Minister said of one of the Orders, is the crux of Government policy. These two Orders cannot be separated from a third Order, which will come in due course and which will be debated, to provide what the Minister called the necessary arrangements and the type of machinery which is required.
Is it not time that the Government made up their mind? When will they do so? [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) keeps muttering to himself. I hope that he will get up and make a sensible contribution to the debate. It is right that hon. Members, on both sides, who represent agricultural constituencies should give us their views about this import policy and how it can be fitted into home production.
The farming community, through its leaders, has conceded the argument about standard quantities. I never regarded the argument as a new one, because Part I of the 1947 Act laid down the principle of standard quantities, even though hon. Members opposite voted against it. Now they have had to accept it. Part I of the 1947 Act deals with
such part of the nation's food and other agricultural produce as in the national interest it is desirable to produce in the United Kingdom".

Now we are changing the Act and adding such part of the nation's food as we import from abroad. I do not disagree with this principle, because we on this side have often said that there must be planning. I want good planning, however. I do not want the chaos, uncertainty, delays and evasions that we have had in agricultural policy for some time.

Mr. Harold Davies: Do not tell Enoch Powell that.

Mr. Peart: No. I have described the Minister and his Joint Parliamentary Secretary as crypto-Socialists in many ways. The backwoodsmen behind them may take a contrary view. They are waiting to criticise the planning arrangements.
We will watch carefully the machinery which is proposed. The trade, which is concerned with imported cereals, has concluded that there must be orderly marketing and machinery outside the Government to do the job. We have come to this conclusion in principle. I am not arguing our policy tonight. We shall argue it on the hustings. We are dealing with the policy of the Government, who are still out of touch with those in the industry. Before we finally approve these Orders we should like to know more about the administrative machinery.
There are one or two hon. Members opposite who are sensible and sided with us in Committee on the Bill when we sought to put the case; we were even supported in a Division. I am sorry that the Liberal Party abstained on one major question. However, there are some people in agriculture who are worried about this, and therefore I plead with the Government to be more forthcoming, more specific. We shall await with interest their detailed proposals when a third Order is presented.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. John Mackie: The Joint Parliamentary Secretary made it quite plain that the main object of these Orders is to provide stability, and I do not think anybody would disagree that we want stability in our grain markets. What we on this side do not agree, and what some hon. Members opposite, even though they are not very vocal about


it, are not happy about, is that this is the right way to get stability.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) said, what we cannot ignore is that the people in the corn trade have said that this is undoubtedly going to cost us dearer food. One thing which should be made quite plain is that it will take something off the taxpayer and put it on the consumer. It will save the Minister from having to come to that Box and ask for higher subsidies. That is all that it is going to do: it will give stability to the market, give us dearer food, and save the Minister coming to ask for subsidies.
One thing I am absolutely certain about is that the levy, which caused such a furore when the matter was discussed in Committee, will be non-existent, judged by the amount collected. I see the Financial Secretary to the Treasury here. I hope he has not come to hear how much will be got out of the levy. He may as well go away home now, because I am certain there will be no levy collected, if we are told that the price to be paid is £20 a ton for barley, or whatever it is, to send to the Treasury. So the hon. Gentleman may as well go away home.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary talked about special arrangements for forward contracts. There is a considable number of forward contracts made in the futures market. I just wonder what these special arrangements are. If there is a considerable difference, who will pay it? The House would be interested to know that.
I think all this shows us that the countries which are selling us this grain are delighted at the speed with which the agreements have been made on this. I am not experienced enough a Member of the House to know whether the Minister has the right or not to seek to make agreements under an Act before it has received the Royal Assent. The Royal Assent to this one was only ten or twelve days ago. If these agreements were made in that time they were made mighty quickly, and I suspect that the Minister was doing something about them before the Bill became law, and I suspect that the agreeing countries have been delighted to make them because

they suspect that grain will fall below the price mentioned in the Orders—which is what we on this side have repeatedly predicted.
I do not want to delay the House but just to emphasise what my hon. Friend said about the people in the corn trade. They emphasise that if the price goes up to the consumer, particular feed grain—and 70 per cent. or more of agricultural produce here is from livestock and livestock products—it will put their costs up considerably.
What we have emphasised time and again is the illogicality of asking people to charge a price below the fixed price we are prepared to pay. They will be delighted to charge the maximum fixed price, as our merchants have also emphasised.
Lastly, and most important, it has been pointed out time and again that it is not prices which depress the market but supplies. If we get the pressure of too much supply of grain we get a depressed market for prices. This scheme will not, therefore, have the effect that it is supposed to have.
We are all agreed on the necessity for stability, but we are worried about the way the Government are trying to achieve it. In Committee hon. Members opposite, who are not saying much tonight, were as worried as we were about fixing prices. They abstained from voting and the Government were defeated. All hon. Members on that Committee understood the importance of the question. But on the Floor of the House the Government put the Whips on and overturned the Committee's decision, which had been based on our understanding of the issue.
That is not the way in which things should be handled and I was worried about it. It is pointless to pursue this matter further now but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Workington said, we must watch this very closely.

10.37 p.m.

Mr. Harold Davies: Hon. Members on both sides of the House know that we had first-class discussions on this in Committee on the Bill and that we all tried to understand clearly what the Minister was trying to do. To be fair to the Minister, I would point out that we are entering an unknown


area where there will have to be an empirical or pragmatic approach. The Government will have to create a new type of machinery.
My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie) made constructive and knowledgeable criticisms of this scheme at the time of our discussions upstairs, and I remember him asking a question which we discussed and which I hope the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will answer tonight, especially since we have this important list of minimum import price levels per ton, with barley at £20 a ton.
The question was what would happen if we paid a levy and then started to export barley product ourselves. Would our merchants be able to claim the levy back on that? I recall the position in the coal mining industry in 1947. We were then very short of coal ourselves but had to maintain certain overseas markets.

Mr. Mackie: We had this situation in 1961 when we were importing barley in the West and exporting in the East.

Mr. Davies: That has happened with a great many commodities and, therefore, the question is not as strange as it may seem at first sight.
What kind of machinery is being drawn up? With the third Order, we should go into this with more information from the Ministry. It would be unfair to delay the House now, because there is little I can add to the argument except to say that the question I have posed deserves an answer and to point out that it originally came from my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East and not from me.

10.40 p.m.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: The Parliamentary Secretary has made it clear this evening, as the Minister did on Second Reading and in Committee, that the purpose of this elaborate scheme is to contain the cost to the Exchequer of the present support system for grains. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) was not quite right in describing this as a levy system with a minimum import price system in addition. It is essentially a minimum price import system which has been used with the

levy as an additional safeguard. I made it clear earlier that we would have preferred to see a levy system, because it is clear that the beneficiaries from our minimum import price system are other countries, whereas if a levy system had been used the beneficiaries would have been in this country.
Is not the Parliamentary Secretary being far too sanguine as to the possible effect on savings to the Exchequer? For example, he pointed out that the prices fixed are near the lower level of prices, very close to current world prices for these commodities. An elaborate system of administration will have to be set up, and I cannot see that it will afford a great deal of protection to the home market when we have a glut. Minimum import prices by themselves are not sufficient to protect the home market; something more is needed. Perhaps the Government have this in mind. A system for the orderly marketing of grains during glut and harvest time is absolutely necessary and the merchants' organisations are surely right to suggest that this mechanism by itself will not protect the home market.
Letters have been disclosed formulating the basis of the agreement in the White Paper between ourselves, the United States, the Argentine, Canada and Australia, but there are no letters, for example, between ourselves and the E.E.C. countries. Has there been an attempt to get the E.E.C. countries to agree to this? I have particularly in mind that at the moment they are re-exporting maize meal here with a drawback on the levy paid in the E.E.C. countries; that is, they are recovering the levies which they have paid on their own importation and are re-exporting here at slightly below world prices. Has there been an attempt to reach agreement with the E.E.C. countries? Have we failed to reach agreement with them, and is it envisaged that we shall use the levy with respect to re-exportations from those countries?
Lastly, I cannot understand why in the Schedule we have to have a minimum import price, for example, for cereal flour in the C category—
containing more than 12 per cent. by weight of protein at the prescribed standard moisture content


with the minimum price fixed at £40 per ton. The Parliamentary Secretary said that a new agreement was to be announced with Canada and Australia, and presumably the majority of this wheat is Manitoba No. 4 wheat which comes from Canada, with some possibly from the United States.
This flour does not compete with flour on the home market. We cannot produce wheat of this standard in this country and I would not have thought that this provision was necessary. It appears to put a floor in the market for the flour millers. There is already very little competition among the flour millers in this country and, if we are to have this minimum import price fixed for the importation of flour for bread at this high quality, there will be virtually an end to any competition among the flour millers in respect of this commodity. I should like some elucidation about why it is thought necessary to have this minimum import price for this commodity.

10.44 p.m.

Mr. Timothy Kitson: What does the Parliamentary Secretary consider will be the price ex-farm for barley this season? I disagree with the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) who appeared to plead the case for the corn merchants in that these levies would keep up prices.
Too often we have been faced with the difficulty of the bottom being knocked out of the market. I was surprised to find that the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie) was not happy about removing this burden from the taxpayer and getting the agricultural industry into a more healthy condition.
It is a little strange to follow the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson). The last time that the Liberal Party was here on an occasion like this was when we were discussing levies on the import of lettuces. I remember that occasion very well. They were here in force and divided the House. It seems as though they are changing their minds a little, and that is very encouraging.
I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to say what he imagines the price of barley will be ex-farm in this country.

Mr. Mackie: I did not say whether it was a good thing or a bad thing to

transfer the burden from the taxpayer to the consumer. I said that it would not save any money.

Mr. Kitson: I am even more surprised to hear that, because the hon. Gentleman is an agriculturalist and he has often talked about stability in agricultural prices. I am sure he knows that one of the things that was worrying the agricultural community was seeing the subsidy bill running at about £360 million. That is the point that I was making, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has followed it up.
I should like to know what my hon. Friend thinks about this, because it seems to me that with imported barley dried down to 14 per cent., when most of our barley is sold at 16 per cent., the price will be rather lower than some of us hoped for, and I disagree with the hon. Member for Workington when he says that the price would have been a little higher rather than a little lower.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: With the permission of the House, I should like to reply to the points which have been raised.
These are two of the most important Orders that have come before us for a long time. They make radical changes in our system for dealing with cereals.
I deal, first, with the point made by the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie), which he repeated several times. He said that the minimum price Order would make the cost of cereals for animal consumption dearer to the purchaser, and presumably he was relating his remarks to cereals for human consumption, too. I do not think that is true. The hon. Gentleman will note that present price levels are much higher than those specified in the Order. Indeed, over the past years they have been generally higher than those in the Order.
The purpose of this Order is to cut out the unrealistically low prices which occur from time to time and cause damage to the market. Its purpose is not so much to contain the cost to the Exchequer as to give stability to the market and to enable our cereal growers to get the benefit of orderly marketing. The prices in the Order are


on the low side, and they will not raise the cost to the consumer. The present levels of prices are well and truly above those in the Order.

Mr. Mackie: I cannot follow the argument that if the price of something is raised the cost of it is not raised, too.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop the point I was making. In recent years the general level of prices has been well above the minimum prices specified in this Order. I expect this Order, which lays down minimum import prices for the specified commodities, and the subdivisions of those commodities, to remain in force during the coming crop year. At the end of that time we shall nave to review it in the light of the experience and knowledge that we have gained to see whether the prices ought to be changed—either raised or lowered, depending on general price levels in the meantime. Thus the minimum prices specified in this Order will not have the effect of increasing the general level of the cost to the consumer of cereals, cereal meals, or cereal flours.
10.50 p.m.
The hon. Member for Enfield, East chided me for the speed at which we had concluded agreements with the cooperating countries—Australia, Argentina, America and Canada. I am surprised he should chide us on this. Usually hon. Members opposite chide up because we take too long in their view to bring in certain measures. I thought that for once in his life he would be congratulating the Government on speedy action in implementing what he knows in his heart of hearts to be the right policy in this field. This has taken a great deal of very hard work and negotiation. I am delighted to see these agreements concluded as quickly as they have been. I am sure that he does not want to persist in his sedentary interruptions, because he knows full well how fast we act in matters of importance.
The hon. Member also referred to the special arrangements for forward contracts. I do not think he wants me to go over all this ground again. This point was discussed extensively when the parent Act was passing through

Parliament and we went over such matters as how a maximum forward rate of levy will be quoted to the importer when he registers a contract and how the importer will benefit from this maximum rate when he comes to import the grain. Depending on the actual rate of levy at the time, he may qualify for a rebate. If the hon. Member looks up the HANSARD of the Committee stage, he will find all the information on that point there.
That also applies to the point raised by the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) about the re-export of barley, wheat, or whatever it may be. I agree that any cereal or cereal product could be re-exported after a levy had been paid on it. Section 1(3) of the parent Act would permit us to provide for a repayment of the levy. If he looks back again to the time when the Act was going through the House in Committee, he will see that I explained it to him then.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) asked about the minimum price of £40 for high-protein wheat flour. I am sure he knows that the whole of the flour market is inter-related. If we left out one particular type of flour, even though it did not necessarily compete directly with other types, we might endanger the price stability of all the other related types. Indeed, all cereal prices are related to each other; that is how this particular trade works. If we left out one product, we might upset the balance of the whole; so we must cover the whole range.

Mr. Hooson: Does the Parliamentary Secretary not agree that this particular grain of wheat is the basis of most of the bread in this country and that he is really putting a floor on that market?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: At the moment, this flour forms part of the grist which is used for bread in this country. There are other constituents. Part of the grist is Australian wheat and part is English home-grown soft wheat. There are a great many constituents in the grist. If we upset the balance of prices we might endanger the very principle on which we are aiming at getting stability. We must cover the whole field at once.
In the case of this particular flour, the same argument applies. £40 is below the present levels. We are only cutting out the low troughs to which the price of this particular type of flour might fall.
As far as the E.E.C. is concerned, it is not a question of negotiations having failed. We are hopeful that some of the countries which provide the other 15 or 20 per cent. of our supplies can enter into agreements with us. As I told the House earlier, about 80 or 85 per cent. of our present supplies come from the countries with which we have concluded agreements. We hope that other suppliers will be able to enter into agreements with us, and I include the E.E.C. countries in that category. I hope that we shall be able to conclude agreements with them.
But all these negotiations will take time, and if these countries are to conclude agreements with us they will have to give undertakings of the sort contained in the agreements already published in the White Paper. Although we move fast, as the hon. Member for Enfield, East admitted, we cannot do everything at once, although we try to do the impossible sometimes, and even succeed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Kitson) asked me to forecast what the ex-farm price of grain will be in the coming year. He knows that I cannot tell him that. I hope that the various arrangements we are making will stabilise the market, but this is something on which he will not expect me to stick my neck out. He knows what trouble I could get into if I chanced a definite answer.
I turn now to the points raised by the hon. Member for Workington. He made considerable play about the machinery of the minimum price system and asked how it would work. He has been asking this for weeks. I am sick of hearing it. He never stops asking it. I have explained it to him many times, and I find it difficult to go on saying the same thing in different ways, so as to hold his attention and that of the House. He knows that the collection of the levy at the port of entry will be carried out by the Customs and Excise authorities. They collect Customs duty on many products, including some cereals, and this will not be a particularly onerous addi-

tion to their duties. The schedule to the parent Act adapts the provisions of the Customs legislation for this purpose.
The hon. Member will realise that we could not have brought the third Order before the House—laying down the machinery for the working of the levy—until the Orders that we are now discussing had been laid. In those circumstances I cannot see what substance there is in his chiding me with not having told him how the machinery will work. He knew that I could not do so until these two Orders had been approved.

Mr. Peart: Whose fault is that?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: It is nobody's fault. As a matter of fact, the hon. Member for Enfield, East chided me for being too quick. I have gone as far as I can in explaining how the general and country levies will work. What is needed for this purpose is information about prices on the cereals markets. We shall also need Information on the prices at which contracts are being concluded. Under the Statistics of Trade Act certain returns are already required, and these statistics will be used.
My right hon. Friend may need several extra people the cereals division of his Ministry to cope with the extra work involved in compiling and evaluating this information, but once the machinery Order has gone through, laying down how the country levy and the general levy will operate, it will simply be a question of getting the information relating to price levels, so that the size of the levy which my right hon. Friend prescribes by Order can be fixed day by day, week by week, or month by month, depending on price movements. I have told the hon. Member all this before. It is nothing new to him. I hope that the House will bear with me for having gone into it yet again.
The hon. Member also referred to my right hon. Friend's statement on 22nd May when he was speaking in a much wider context about the possibility of setting up a body to co-ordinate supplies. In that speech my right hon. Friend was referring to meat as well as cereals. For bacon there is already a consultative council, and, as we have just announced, there will be a committee with trade advisers to supervise


the working of the special arrangements for Canadian and Australian flour. The present two Orders are in line with what my right hon. Friend said.
The hon. Member seemed to be a little confused when talking about a breakdown of arrangements. He was talking about meat products and a breakdown of supplies, and he asked what would happen if there were a breakdown in the supply of cereals because of these Orders. He asked whether I could give an assurance that there would be no breakdown. These Orders relate only to minimum prices and not to quantities. If there were a breakdown of supplies it would be because of bad harvests or bad crops, in this country or abroad, affecting the quantities available; it would have nothing to do with these Orders.

Mr. Peart: There might be a breakdown in Government policy as there has been over meat.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: There has been no breakdown in Government policy over meat. There is no question of blame attaching to anyone. The breakdown will come if ever the country is so unfortunate as to have an Administration by hon. Members opposite trying to operate these Orders.

Mr. Peart: Who is paying the high prices? The British housewife.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Does the hon. Member wish to intervene?

Mr. Peart: Yes. The British housewife is paying very high prices.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: For cereals?

Mr. Peart: For meat.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I thought that we were talking about an Order dealing with cereals.

Mr. Speaker: Order. These exchanges with one hon. Member seated and the other standing do not facilitate the passage of business.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: There are only one or two other remarks to which I wish to refer. The hon. Member asked whether we had consulted the National Association of Corn and Agricultural Merchants Ltd. We have consulted them

although we have not perhaps carried them with us on every single point contained in these Orders. When the hon. Member quoted from the Association's paper I was not sure whether he was putting forward his own ideas or the Association's ideas and, if the latter, whether he agreed with them. I thought that he was putting the case of the corn merchants rather than his own case.
He asked what would happen if the market price fell below the minimum import price. That can easily happen, but it would not be because of imports from overseas. The reason would be what happened on the home market.
I hope that in these few points which I have been able to answer I have shown the House that these Orders are of extreme importance.

11.3 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: There is one point which I wish to make and that is that there is no date in these Orders.
These are draft Orders. They come before the House in this form to allow us to say what we feel about them and to enable the Government to have an opportunity for second thoughts. This also enables domestic interests to make their views known. The hon. Member's remarks in relation to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) about the domestic concern were quite out of keeping with the nature of the Orders.
The hon. Member said that the Orders did not include a date for a fairly obvious reason, but what we are discussing is incomplete, and an important part of the discussion has been out of order because we have been referring to Orders which are not yet laid. The person who introduced the Order is the Minister, and he caught my eye on more than one occasion for he knew quite well what was in my thoughts—which was that he was chancing his arm in relation to his prepared brief in connection with matters of the rules of order. When will the Minister be in a position to put a date to these Orders? I understand that the date will be given only when the right hon. Gentleman has made up his mind about the next stage, which is the important stage.
What types of levy will be prescribed and how will they be calculated? What machinery will be used to put them into effect? These questions must be answered, because it is after this point, when decisions have been made, that the right hon. Gentleman will not have to bother with Parliament, for the fourth stage Orders will be the actual levies and, by the very nature of things, they may require to be amended or altered to meet prevailing circumstances.
Since hon. Members have been so concerned about this, it is obviously pointless of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to say that there is no question of increased prices. The whole idea, the reason for the presence of Treasury representatives and the basis of these Orders is to safeguard the Revenue in certain cases and to ensure that we do not have a run on the Treasury for support prices in, say, cases of surpluses driving down the home market. In such circumstances there must be increased prices, particularly since stability often means higher prices.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: By leave of the House, I can answer the hon. Member's question about the date by telling him that we expect the Orders to come into effect by 1st July, as the latest working date. This is the beginning of the cereal year. If it can be done earlier—perhaps between 1st June and 1st July—my right hon. Friend will implement them sooner.
His question about the fourth stage can be answered simply by pointing out that the fourth stage is only implementing the machinery of the third stage, which will be contained in an Order to be laid before the House shortly.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Price Stability of Imported Products (Specified Commodities) Order, 1964, a draft of which was laid before this House on 15th April, be approved.

Price Stability of Imported Products (Minimum Import Price Levels) Order 1964 [draft laid before the House, 15th April], approved—[Mr. Scott-Hopkins.]

UGANDA (GIFT OF A MACE)

Considered in Committee.

[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

11.9 p.m.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty will give directions that there be presented on behalf of this House a Mace to the National Assembly of Uganda, and assuring Her Majesty that this House will make good the expenses attending the same.
To move a Motion in these terms is one of the pleasanter duties of the Leader of the House. We take great pleasure in the fact that our own House contains gifts from other Parliaments in the Commonwealth. It is, therefore, a happy custom, which we are now following, that whenever a Commonwealth country obtains independence we send to its Parliament a gift from this House.
It has been decided, after the usual consultations, that the gift should take the form of a mace. The mace is of modern design and has been commissioned by the Ministry of Public Building and Works from the young designer and silversmith, Gerald Wiles, of Birmingham. It will be very appropriate to the fine new Parliament building in Kampala, and hon. Members will be able to appreciate its craftsmanship when it is placed for display in the Palace of Westminster on 12th, 13th and 14th of next month.
If this Motion is accepted, arrangements will be made with Mr. Speaker, in accordance with custom, for a small delegation from the House to present the gift, with our best wishes, at a time convenient to the National Assembly of Uganda. I am sure that the Motion will be accepted in all quarters and that this gift will go with our good wishes to the National Assembly and the people of Uganda.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

LEASEHOLD PROPERTY, PONTYMISTER

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Finlay.]

11.11 p.m.

Mr. Harold Finch: I want to refer to a constituency case concerned with leasehold property. We have had a number of debates here on the leasehold system, and many of my hon. Friends and some hon. Members opposite have urged reform, which successive Ministers have resisted. In so resisting the suggested reform, Ministers have said that if it could be shown that the prices being asked were far in excess of the fair value of the reversion they would be glad to examine any information that was put in their hands.
On 7th December, 1962, the Minister of Housing and Local Government said:
I have no evidence that landlords are asking more than is justified by the value being transferred to the purchaser. Any occupant can consult his valuer and complain to his Member of Parliament—and, through him, to me—and say that, in the light of this, the landlord is claiming too much."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th December, 1962; Vol 668, c. 1700.]
Again, on 12th July, 1961, the then Minister of Housing and Local Government said:
The Government are very willing…to examine any information on these matters which is put into our hands…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th July, 1961; Vol. 644, c. 466.]
I desire to refer to the case of property at 31 Commercial Street, Pontymister, Monmouthshire. It consists of a small shop, with living rooms, three bedrooms and other conveniences. The premises are owned by a Mrs. Carpenter, whose parents bought the property many years ago on a 99-year lease. The parents have since passed away. There are 13 years left before the expiry of the lease.
The plot of land is 170 square yards. The ground rent is £12 10s. per annum. Three years ago the then landlords, who are well-known in the county, Tredegar Estates, through their agent, Eve and Co., well-known valuers, offered to dispose of the lease for £380, but at that time Mrs. Carpenter did not have sufficient means to meet that amount. Some time ago, however, she thought that she

was in a position to do so. When she reopened the question she found that the landlords had changed, the present landlords being Consolidated City Properties, Ltd., who through their agents, Messrs. Healey and Baker, wrote to her stating that they would recommend the disposal of the lease for £2,500 subject to her paying the legal costs and surveyor's fees.
I have made inquiries from surveyors and others who regard this amount as extortionate. It is 200 times the ground rent. It is 6½ times what it was three years ago. I regard it as shocking and wicked exploitation. I thought that in this matter the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government would use his good offices to help this lady in accordance with promises made by successive Ministers who have said that if there was a case where it was considered that the valuation was unfair the matter could be brought to their attention.
The Parliamentary Secretary, in his reply to me, said that
…it would not be proper for him to comment on the reasonableness or otherwise of the terms offered in any particular case but in considering the reasonableness of the terms asked for the freehold reversion one test which can be applied is whether the lessor, having bought the freehold reversion, could obtain more by selling the property with vacant possession that it would in total have cost her.
He went on to suggest that Mrs. Carpenter might consult a valuer or take professional advice.
In all debates on leasehold one of the grounds given by the Government for resisting amending the law is that regard must be paid to prevailing market values. But even if we take four times the ground rent—which I certainly regard as excessive; but I try to be reasonable and it may be said that the ground rent was fixed many years ago—this would amount to £50 per annum. Purchase of the freehold reversion, calculated on a basis of 25 years, would then be £1,250 which is half the amount asked, which I submit is in excess of market values which is related to demand.
In considering market value, of course, we take demand into account. There is not a demand for business premises in this area. This is borne


out by the fact that within about 200 yards of this lady's house one can find three vacant business and residential premises. One of them has been vacant for over 12 months, and the same agents, Messrs. Healey and Baker, are unable to find anyone to take it. There has been no material change in the district since the Tredegar Estate suggested the figure of £380 three years ago. In fact, the nearby tinplate works has been closed since then, and the position has, if anything, deteriorated. Although many men have found employment at Llanwern, the position has changed for the worse. These three shop premises are empty. If there were any question of redevelopment, I could quite understand this, too, being taken into account but there is no such thing in contemplation.
The sum of £2,500 is excessive. It is an outrageous price in the circumstances, and I hope that now, at the last moment, the Parliamentary Secretary will do something about it. Otherwise, the previous statements of Ministers will mean nothing at all. Ministers have told us that, if they hear of a case of hardship, they will do what they can to help. But these promises will have no value whatever if the hon. Gentleman cannot tonight give me an assurance that he will give careful consideration to this case and come to the aid of this lady who can never hope to pay the sum she is now asked to find.

11.21 p.m.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: My hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) has outlined a distressing case, with his customary moderation and skill, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give it the most grave consideration. In all our debates on this subject since 1951, on the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1953, and on leasehold reform generally, we on this side have stressed time and again that many lessees in South Wales and elsewhere in the country are suffering very real hardship. My hon. Friend has reminded us of what successive Ministers of Housing and Local Government have said on the matter when the question of hardship was brought to their notice. The present Minister of Housing and Local Government said, in the debate to which my

hon. Friend referred, on 7th December, 1962, that if cases of this kind were brought to his notice he would look at them very carefully and decide what should be done. This is what I understood him to say. It seems to me that this case of 31 Commercial Road, Pontymister, is a very disquieting one.
In three years, the price has risen from £380 to £2,500, plus legal costs and auctioneer's costs. Obviously, this is well beyond the modest means of the tenant. As my hon. Friend said, it is 200 times the ground rent.
Now that this case of grievous hardship has been brought to the notice of the Minister, what is he able to do about it? I was rather disappointed by the reply which the Parliamentary Secretary sent to my hon. Friend. All he could say was that his constituent should seek professional advice. As something of a professional adviser myself, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that that will not take the tenant very far. Two things militate against the tenant in circumstances of this kind. One is the state of leasehold law at present. The other is the increasingly inflated price of property and land. Tenants of modest means are in an increasingly difficult position.
As the Joint Parliamentary Secretary knows, this is not the only case. There are many hundreds of similar cases in South Wales and elsewhere. The only effective solution to the problem seems to me to be a practical measure of leasehold reform. I must once again give the assurance that a Labour Government will introduce such a measure of reform as a matter of urgency.

11.25 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): I need not spend time on going over the general principles of the leasehold system, which were discussed at length in the two debates to which reference has been made. I remind the House, however, that when dealing with the valuation of freehold reversion, there are, in effect, two values.
As my right hon. Friend the Minister pointed out in the debate on 7th December, the value of the reversion to the sitting lessee is likely to be a good deal higher than it is to anyone else. This


is because it is only the sitting tenant, so to speak, who is in a position to combine the freehold and the leasehold interest into a freehold absolute in possession. Therefore, the reversion is of more value to him than to a third person, who would be deferred from enjoying the freehold interest until the termination of the remainder of the term which happened to be outstanding. In addition, in the meanwhile he would get as a return on his capital only the annual ground rent. My information is that the ground rent in the case in question is only one guinea, and not twelve guineas, but I shall not argue about that. I have tried to check the figures.
This, therefore, is the first problem which, as I am sure both the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) and his hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) appreciate, would have to be settled in any leasehold reform that the hon. Member for Anglesey has promised. As my right hon. Friend stated in the debate, even assuming that the Government were enamoured of the suggestion of leasehold reform on the lines that the hon. Member has suggested, it is not easy to determine the measure of compensation because of the two market values, although, generally, landlords probably take a figure, or offer to accept a figure, somewhere between the two, which is probably as fair as one can get.
There is, however, a further limiting factor in this case. Although the property is, I understand, a shop property, it is let as residence and shop combined and is rated as such. Therefore, it would seem almost certain that Part I of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954, would "bite". Under the provisions of that Act, the lessee cannot be made to leave the property except by an order of the court for possession and the tenancy continues until it is terminated or is surrendered. If it is not terminated or surrendered on the date when it is due to end, it continues on the same terms as before.
There are grounds on which the landlord can claim possession, to which I will refer presently, but, except in those circumstances, even when the landlord terminates the tenancy there is a right to a statutory tenancy the terms of which are, in default of agreement, to be determined by the county court. If

there is no agreement within two months and the landlord fails to refer to the county court, the current tenancy continues and the notice becomes invalid. If the landlord wants to raise the matter again, he has to start with another notice. Therefore, it is clearly very much in the landlord's interest to reach an agreement expeditiously. The fact that so few of these cases have come to the county courts to date is an indication that agreement is reached which is regarded generally as fair between the two parties.
The grounds on which the landlord can claim possession—and they are of interest as applied to this case—are, first, that he proposes to redevelop. The hon. Gentleman made the point that in his opinion there was no case for redevelopment here, and certainly this would appear to be borne out, for this is one of 12 terraced houses of which in all but three the reversion has already been purchased by the leaseholder and combined into a freehold absolute in possession, with the result that there are only three properties here which will fall to the present landlords at the end of the term. I think they are contiguous, so I suppose one cannot rule out the possibility of the three houses being redeveloped, but on the face of it, it does not look as though it would be easy redevelopment—without being able to acquire the remaining nine houses or at any rate the houses between those three or at one end or the other. So I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, on the face of it, it looks as though the chances of redevelopment are relatively slim.
The second ground is that suitable alternative accommodation is available. The third ground is that the lessee has failed to comply with certain terms of the lease—which I think one can safely say would not happen here. The fourth ground is that the property is reasonably required by the landlord for his occupation and residence by himself or members of his family. There is no suggestion that Mr. Clore is going to settle in this part of Wales, so I think that that is a fairly remote chance, too. So I think we can accept that the chances are that the property-owning company who are the landlords in this case will at


the end of the tenancy probably find themselves at the end of the leasehold with a controlled tenancy, and that on the face of it does not look a particular attractive proposition for a property company. Therefore I would have thought that the present lessee, at the end of the lease, is in not all that weak a bargaining position if she is in a position to exploit that advantage.

Mr. Finch: This is the Tredegar Estate, and £380 in a matter of three years becomes £2,500. It is extortionate.

Mr. Corfield: I am coming to that.
In this case the reason why I wrote to the hon. Gentleman and said it would not be proper for me to comment was quite simply this. The hon. Gentleman fully realises that it would not be a proper function of my Department to go round making valuations and quoting them in a way in which there might well seem to be attached to them an authority which would not be justified. I want to make this qualification, because I propose to use some figures by way of illustration; but it ought not to be accepted by anyone as an authoritative valuation. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows and the House realises, valuation is hardly a precise science at the best of times. I suppose the real arbiter of what is or is not the market price would be an auction sale. I do not regard this as a very precise operation, but nor, with due respect to the hon. Gentleman, would I regard it as a reasonable basis here to take a multiple of the ground rent, because the ground rent here is something which was set probably many many years ago, probably the best part of a hundred years ago.

Mr. Finch: I have allowed for that.

Mr. Corfield: Even if one accepts that, the fact is that by taking a multiple of the ground rent one cannot take into account the length of the term of the lease which is still outstanding. I would suggest the better guide is the rateable value of the house and shop together, especially bearing in mind that as a result of revaluation this is a fairly up-to-date assessment of the value of the property.
The gross value of the house is £150 and the rateable value £106 per annum.

The figure which the hon. Member tells me has been placed upon the freehold reversion by the freeholders is £2,500, and that, according to my calculations, is something like 23½ times the rateable value and close on 17 times the gross value. Again on the qualification that this is not a precise valuer's exercise, this is the sort of relationship one would expect to find, taking the rateable value as the rental value, between rental and the value of the full freehold unencumbered.
I cannot dissent from the hon. Member that this is a very high figure indeed to ask for the reversion, bearing in mind that the leasehold interest has only eleven years to run. I would not dispute with him that this is a very high price. Nevertheless, one has to bear in mind that this is only, as far as we know, the asking price, and I am sure that no one will suggest that it would be possible to prevent people asking a high price as the initial price of the negotiations, and, as far as I am aware, we do not know whether any other negotiations have taken place.
That, of course, is why I suggested that the hon. Member's constituent should take professional advice in order to get some idea as to the sort of figure it would be fair to agree should the landowners be willing to negotiate. We do not even know whether they are. This looks to me as if this were another way of saying that the reversion is not for sale. But that is something we cannot really tell.
It is only right to say that, as this is only the asking price, we cannot really draw a final conclusion as to the sort of price the landlords might have in mind as to what they would ultimately accept. After all, we all, I think, agree that it is not an unusual practice not only in house buying but in many other walks of life—in the agricultural market, for instance—for a vendor to start with a price he does not expect to get and for a purchaser to offer a price he does not expect to be accepted.

Mr. Finch: My constituent is frightened of the large figure of £2,500.

Mr. Corfield: Subject to that, we have to bear in mind in the circumstances of this case that the Landlord and Tenant


Act seems to strengthen the bargaining position of this lady very substantially, because this is, after all, a property company, clearly out to make a profit, and is unlikely to be enamoured of the likelihood of being landed with a statutory tenancy when the lease expires.
The second thing we must bear in mind which the hon. Gentleman brought to our attention is that there are apparently other properties either in this terrace or close by which are vacant, again indicating that the market pressures for this type of property would not appear to be excessive and certainly not such as would justify a figure of this sort for reversion, bearing in mind that the freeholds of nine of the houses out of the 12 have already been split up between different owners. So I hope that there will be some comfort to the hon. Member's constituent in that there is a considerable bargaining factor in her hands.
My right hon. Friend made the invitation quoted and his purpose was that if there were a large number of cases like this it might be necessary to look at the whole thing again, but this case, it seems to me at this stage, is something which may well turn out quite happily in the end in view of the cards in this good lady's hands with regard to the Landlord and Tenant Act, as a result of other properties being vacant, with the effect of that on the market, as a result of the fact that the lease has eleven years or more to run and as a result to some extent—and one might take a sort of backhanded con-

solation here—of the fact that this figure is very high. I cannot really believe anybody seriously expects that figure to be paid for this reversion, which has some eleven years to run.
I do not want to make a party point out of a debate on a purely constituency matter, but the hon. Gentleman ended his speech by assuring us that the Labour Party, if returned to power, would reform the leasehold system. We ought to bear in mind that the Labour Party's whole land policy depends on recreating a leasehold system, I know with a different result at the end of the lease in that, as long as the house was still there, the lease would not be terminated, but, nevertheless, with a ground lease fixed not for 99 years, but coming up from time to time as the value of the property goes up, presumably in proportion to the rate at which rateable value goes up.
Whatever advantages this may have for the community to whom this extra value is to accrue, from the point of view of the leaseholder there is no doubt that rather than a guinea a year over a long period, or 12 guineas, or whatever the figure may be, it will be an unknown quantity to be levied from time to time as and when the house is revalued. That should be borne in mind when we compare the two types of leasehold, one which is held out by the party opposite for our admiration and the other for our condemnation.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to Twelve o'clock.